STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS: 

A  STUDY  IN  AMEEICAN  POLITICS 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK   •    BOSTON   *  CHICAGO 
ATLANTA  •    SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON  •    BOMBAY  •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

A  STUDY  IN  AMERICAN 
POLITICS 


By 
ALLEN  JOHNSON 

PROFESSOR    OF    HISTORY    IN    BOWDOIN    COLLEGE;    SOMETIME 
PROFESSOR    OF    HISTORY    IN    IOWA    COLLEGE 


J15eto  gorfe 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1908 

All  rights  reserved 


COPYRIGHT.  1908 
By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  February  1306 


THE  MASON-HENRY  PRESS 
SYRACUSE.  N.  Y. 


PROFESSOR  JESSE  MACY 

whose  wisdom  and  kindliness  have  inspired 
a  generation  of  students 


PREFACE 

To  describe  the  career  of  a  man  who  is  now  chiefly 
remembered  as  the  rival  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  must 
seem  to  many  minds  a  superfluous,  if  not  invidious, 
undertaking.  The  present  generation  is  prone  to  for 
get  that  when  the  rivals  met  in  joint  debate  fifty  years 
ago,  on  the  prairies  of  Illinois,  it  was  Senator  Douglas, 
and  not  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  was  the  cynosure  of  all  ob 
serving  eyes.  Time  has  steadily  lessened  the  prestige 
of  the  great  Democratic  leader,  and  just  as  steadily 
enhanced  the  fame  of  his  Republican  opponent. 

The  following  pages  have  been  written,  not  as  a 
vindication,  but  as  an  interpretation  of  a  personality 
whose  life  spans  the  controversial  epoch  before  the 
Civil  War.  It  is  due  to  the  chance  reader  to  state  that 
the  writer  was  born  in  a  New  England  home,  and  bred 
in  an  anti- slavery  atmosphere  where  the  political  creed 
of  Douglas  could  not  thrive.  If  this  book  reveals  a 
somewhat  less  sectional  outlook  than  this  personal 
allusion  suggests,  the  credit  must  be  given  to  those 
generous  friends  in  the  great  Middle  West,  who  have 
helped  the  writer  to  interpret  the  spirit  of  that  region 
which  gave  both  Douglas  and  Lincoln  to  the  nation.  j 

The  material  for  this  study  has  been  brought  to 
gether  from  many  sources.  Through  the  kindness  of 
Mrs.  James  W.  Patton  of  Springfield,  Illinois,  I  have 
had  access  to  a  valuable  collection  of  letters  written  by 
Douglas  to  her  father,  Charles  H.  Lanphier,  Esq., 
editor  of  the  Illinois  State  Register.  Judge  Robert 
M.  Douglas  of  North  Carolina  has  permitted  me  to  use 


PREFACE 

an  autobiographical  sketch  of  his  father,  as  well  as 
other  papers  in  the  possession  of  the  family.  Among 
those  who  have  lightened  my  labors,  either  by  copies 
of  letters  penned  by  Douglas  or  by  personal  recollec 
tions,  I  would  mention  with  particular  gratitude  the 
late  Mrs.  L.  K.  Lippincott  ("  Grace  Greenwood ") ; 
Mr.  J.  H.  Eoberts  and  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  Esq.  of 
Chicago ;  Chief  Justice  Melville  W.  Fuller  and  the  late 
Hon.  Eobert  E.  Hitt  of  Washington.  With  his  wonted 
generosity,  Mr.  James  F.  Ehodes  has  given  me  the 
benefit  of  his  wide  acquaintance  with  the  newspapers 
of  the  period,  which  have  been  an  invaluable  aid  in  the 
interpretation  of  Douglas's  career.  Finally,  by  per 
sonal  acquaintance  and  conversation  with  men  who 
knew  him,  I  have  endeavored  to  catch  the  spirit  of 
those  who  made  up  the  great  mass  of  his  constituents. 

Brunswick,  Maine, 

November,  1907. 


CONTENTS 


BOOK  I.  THE  CALL  OF  THE  WEST 

CHAPTEK  I 
FROM  THE  GREEN  MOUNTAINS  TO  THE  PRAIRIES 


CHAPTEE  II 
THE  EISE  OF  THE  POLITICIAN 18 

CHAPTER  III 
LAW   AND   POLITICS 51 

CHAPTEE  IV 
UNDER  THE  AEGIS  OF  ANDREW  JACKSON 68 

CHAPTEE  V 
MANIFEST  DESTINY 84 

CHAPTER  VI 
WAR  AND  POLITICS 109 

CHAPTEE  VII 
THE    MEXICAN    CESSION..  .  127 


BOOK  II.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  POPULAR 
SOVEREIGNTY 

CHAPTEE  VIII 
SENATOR  AND   CONSTITUENCY 145 

CHAPTEE  IX 
MEASURES  or  ADJUSTMENT 166 

CHAPTER  X 
YOUNG   AMERICA    191 

CHAPTER  XI 
THE    KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT 220 

ix 


x  CONTENTS 

CHAPTEE  XII 
BLACK    REPUBLICANISM 260 

CHAPTEE  XIII 
TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY.  .  .  281 


BOOK  III.     THE  IMPENDING  CRISIS 

CHAPTEE  XIV 
PERSONAL   EQUATION 309 

CHAPTEE  XV 
~-THE   EEVOLT   OF   DOUGLAS 324 

CHAPTEE  XVI 
*  THE  JOINT  DEBATES   WITH  LINCOLN 348 

CHAPTEE  XVII 

THE    AFTERMATH 393 

'  v 

CHAPTEE  XVIII 
THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860 412 

CHAPTEE  XIX 

'  THE  MERGING  OF  THE  PARTISAN  IN  THE  PATRIOT 442 

CHAPTEE  XX 
THE    SUMMONS 475 


BOOK  I 
THE  CALL  OF  THE  WEST 


CHAPTER   I 

FKOM  THE  GREEN  MOUNTAINS  TO  THE  PRAIRIES 

The  dramatic  moments  in  the  colonizing  of  coastal 
New  England  have  passed  into  song,  story,  and  sober 
chronicle;  but  the  farther  migration  of  the  English 
people,  from  tide-water  to  interior,  has  been  too  pro 
saic  a  theme  for  poets  and  too  diverse  a  movement  for 
historians.  Yet  when  all  the  factors  in  our  national  his 
tory  shall  be  given  their  full  value,  none  will  seem 
more  potent  than  the  great  racial  drift  from  the  New 
England  frontier  into  the  heart  of  the  continent.  The 
New  Englanders  who  formed  a  broad  belt  from  Ver 
mont  and  New  York  across  the  Northwest  to  Kansas, 
were  a  social  and  political  force  of  incalculable  power, 
in  the  era  which  ended  with  the  Civil  War.  The  New 
Englander  of  the  Middle  West,  however,  ceased  to  be 
altogether  a  Yankee.  The  lake  and  prairie  plains  bred 
a  spirit  which  contrasted  strongly  with  the  smug 
provincialism  of  rock-ribbed  and  sterile  New  England. 
The  exultation  born  of  wide,  unbroken,  horizon  lines 
and  broad,  teeming,  prairie  landscapes,  found  expres 
sion  in  the  often-quoted  saying,  "Vermont  is  the  most 
glorious  spot  on  the  face  of  this  globe  for  a  man  to  be 
born  in,  provided  he  emigrates  when  he  is  very  young." 
The  career  of  Stephen  Arnold  Douglas  is  intelligible 
only  as  it  is  viewed  against  the  background  of  a  New 
England  boyhood,  a  young  manhood  passed  on  the 
prairies  of  Illinois,  and  a  wedded  life  pervaded  by  the 
gentle  culture  of  Southern  womanhood. 

3 


4  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

In  America,  observed  De  Tocqueville  two  genera 
tions  ago,  democracy  disposes  every  man  to  forget 
his  ancestors.  When  the  Hon.  Stephen  A.  Douglas 
was  once  asked  to  prepare  an  account  of  his  career 
for  a  biographical  history  of  Congress,  he  chose  to  omit 
all  but  the  barest  reference  to  his  forefathers.1  Pos 
sibly  he  preferred  to  leave  the  family  tree  naked,  that 
his  unaided  rise  to  eminence  might  the  more  impress 
the  chance  reader.  Yet  the  records  of  the  Douglass 
family  are  not  uninteresting.2  The  first  of  the  name  to 
cross  the  ocean  was  William  Douglass,  who  was  born  in 
Scotland  and  who  wedded  Mary  Ann,  daughter  of 
Thomas  Marble  of  Northampton.  Just  when  this 
couple  left  Old  England  is  not  known,  but  the  birth  of 
a  son  is  recorded  in  Boston,  in  the  year  1645.  Soon 
after  this  event  they  removed  to  New  London,  prefer 
ring,  it  would  seem,  to  try  their  luck  in  an  outlying 
settlement,  for  this  region  was  part  of  the  Pequot 
country.  Somewhat  more  than  a  hundred  years  later, 
Benajah  Douglass,  a  descendant  of  this  pair  and  grand 
father  of  the  subject  of  this  sketch,  pushed  still  farther 
into  the  interior,  and  settled  in  Eensselaer  County,  in 
the  province  of  New  York.  The  marriage  of  Benajah 
Douglass  to  Martha  Arnold,  a  descendant  of  Governor 
William  Arnold  of  Ehode  Island,  has  an  interest  for 
those  who  are  disposed  to  find  Celtic  qualities  in  the 
grandson,  for  the  Arnolds  were  of  Welsh  stock,  and 
may  be  supposed  to  have  revived  the  strain  in  the 
Douglass  blood. 

1  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  he  supplied  the  data  for  the  sketch 
in  Wheeler's  Biographical  and  Political  History  of  Congress. 

2  See  Transactions  of  the  Illinois  State  Historical  Society,  1901,  pp. 
113-114. 


GREEN    MOUNTAINS    TO    PRAIRIES  5 

Tradition  has  made  Benajah  Douglass  a  soldier  in 
the  war  of  the  Revolution,  but  authentic  records  go  no 
farther  back  than  the  year  1795,  when  he  removed  with 
his  family  to  Brandon,  Vermont.  There  he  purchased 
a  farm  of  about  four  hundred  acres,  which  he  must 
have  cultivated  with  some  degree  of  skill,  since  it  seems 
to  have  yielded  an  ample  competency.  He  is  described 
as  a  man  of  genial,  buoyant  disposition,  with  much 
self-confidence.  He  was  five  times  chosen  selectman  of 
Brandon;  and  five  times  he  was  elected  to  represent 
the  town  in  the  General  Assembly.  The  physical  quali 
ties  of  the  grandson  may  well  have  been  a  family  in 
heritance,  since  of  Benajah  we  read  that  he  was  of 
medium  height,  with  large  head  and  body,  short  neck, 
and  short  limbs.1 

The  portrait  of  Benajah 's  son  is  far  less  distinct. 
He  was  a  graduate  of  Middlebury  College  and  a  physi 
cian  by  profession.  He  married  Sally  Fisk,  the 
daughter  of  a  well-to-do  farmer  in  Brandon,  by  whom 
he  had  two  children,  the  younger  of  whom  was  Stephen 
Arnold  Douglass,  born  April  23,  1813.  The  promis 
ing  career  of  the  young  doctor  was  cut  short  by  a 
sudden  stroke,  which  overtook  him  as  he  held  his  infant 
son  in  his  arms.  The  plain,  little  one-and-a-half  story 
house,  in  which  the  boy  first  saw  the  light,  suggests  that 
the  young  physician  had  been  unable  to  provide  for 
more  than  the  bare  necessities  of  his  family.2 

Soon  after  the  death  of  Dr.  Douglass,  his  widow 
removed  to  the  farm  which  she  and  her  unmarried 
brother  had  inherited  from  her  father.  The  children 
grew  to  love  this  bachelor  uncle  with  almost  filial  affec- 

1  Vermont  Historical  Gazetteer,  III,  p.  457. 

2  Transactions  of  the  Illinois  State  Historical  Society,  1901,  p.  115. 


6  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

tion.  Too  young  to  take  thought  for  the  morrow,  they 
led  the  wholesome,  natural  life  of  country  children. 
Stephen  went  to  the  district  school  on  the  Brandon 
turnpike,  and  had  no  reason  to  bemoan  the  fate  which 
left  him  largely  dependent  upon  his  uncle's  generosity. 
An  old  school-mate  recalls  young  Douglass  through  the 
haze  of  years,  as  a  robust,  healthy  boy,  with  generous 
instincts  though  tenacious  of  his  rights.1  After  school 
hours  work  and  play  alternated.  The  regular  farm 
chores  were  not  the  least  part  in  the  youngster's  edu 
cation  ;  he  learned  to  be  industrious  and  not  to  despise 
honest  labor.2 

This  bare  outline  of  a  commonplace  boyhood  must  be 
filled  in  with  many  details  drawn  from  environment. 
Stephen  fell  heir  to  a  wealth  of  inspiring  local  tradi 
tions.  The  fresh  mountain  breezes  had  also  once  blown 
full  upon  the  anxious  faces  of  heroes  and  patriots ;  the 
quiet  valleys  had  once  echoed  with  the  noise  of  battle ; 
this  land  of  the  Green  Mountains  was  the  Wilderness 
of  colonial  days,  the  frontier  for  restless  New  Eng- 
landers,  where  with  good  axe  and  stout  heart  they  had 
carved  their  home  plots  out  of  the  virgin  forest.  Many 
a  legend  of  adventure,  of  border  warfare,  and  of  per 
sonal  heroism,  was  still  current  among  the  Green 
Mountain  folk.  Where  was  the  Vermont  lad  who  did 
not  fight  over  again  the  battles  of  Bennington,  Ticon- 
deroga,  and  Plattsburg? 

Other  influences  were  scarcely  less  formative  in  the 
life  of  the  growing  boy.  Vermont  was  also  the  land  of 

JMr.  B.  F.  Field  in  the  Vermonter,  January,  1897. 

2  For  many  facts  relating  to  Douglas 's  life,  I  am  indebted  to  an  un 
published  autobiographical  sketch  in  the  possession  of  his  son,  Judge 
E.  M.  Douglas,  of  Greensboro,  North  Carolina. 


GREEN   MOUNTAINS    TO    PRAIRIES  7 

the  town  meeting.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  effici 
ency  of  town  government,  it  was  and  is  a  school 
of  democracy.  In.  Vermont  it  was  the  natural  political 
expression  of  social  forces.  How  else,  indeed,  could 
the  general  will  find  fit  expression,  except  through  the 
attrition  of  many  minds  ?  And  who  could  know  better 
the  needs  of  the  community  than  the  commonalty?  Not 
that  men  reasoned  about  the  philosophy  of  their  poli 
tical  institutions:  they  simply  accepted  them.  And 
young  Douglass  grew  up  in  an  atmosphere  friendly  to 
local  self-government  of  an  extreme  type. 

Stephen  was  nearing  his  fourteenth  birthday,  when 
an  event  occurred  which  interrupted  the  even  current 
of  his  life.  His  uncle,  who  was  commonly  regarded 
as  a  confirmed  old  bachelor,  confounded  the  village 
gossips  by  bringing  home  a  young  bride.  The  birth  of 
a  son  and  heir  was  the  nephew's  undoing.  While  the 
uncle  regarded  Stephen  with  undiminished  affection, 
he  was  now  much  more  emphatically  in  loco  parentis. 
An  indefinable  something  had  come  between  them.  The 
subtle  change  in  relationship  was  brought  home  to  both 
when  Stephen  proposed  that  he  should  go  to  the 
academy  in  Brandon,  to  prepare  for  college.  That  he 
was  to  go  to  college,  he  seems  to  have  taken  for  granted. 
There  was  a  moment  of  embarrassment,  and  then  the 
uncle  told  the  lad,  frankly  but  kindly,  that  he  could  not 
provide  for  his  further  education.  With  considerable 
show  of  affection,  he  advised  him  to  give  up  the  notion 
of  going  to  college  and  to  remain  on  the  farm,  where  he 
would  have  an  assured  competence.  In  after  years 
the  grown  man  related  this  incident  with  a  tinge  of 
bitterness,  averring  that  there  had  been  an  understand- 


8  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

ing  in  the  family  that  he  was  to  attend  college.1  Mo 
mentary  disappointment  he  may  have  felt,  to  be  sure, 
but  he  could  hardly  have  been  led  to  believe  that  he 
could  draw  indefinitely  upon  his  uncle 's  bounty. 

Piqued  and  somewhat  resentful,  Stephen  made  up 
his  mind  to  live  no  longer  under  his  uncle's  roof.  He 
would  show  his  spirit  by  proving  that  he  was  abun 
dantly  able  to  take  care  of  himself.  Much  against  the 
wishes  of  his  mother,  who  knew  him  to  be  mastered  by 
a  boyish  whim,  he  apprenticed  himself  to  Nahum 
Parker,  a  cabinet-maker  in  Middlebury.2  He  put  on 
his  apron,  went  to  work  sawing  table  legs  from  two- 
inch  planks,  and,  delighted  with  the  novelty  of  the  occu 
pation  and  exhilarated  by  his  newly  found  sense  of 
freedom,  believed  himself  on  the  highway  to  happiness 
and  prosperity.  He  found  plenty  of  companions  with 
whom  he  spent  his  idle  hours,  young  fellows  who  had 
a  taste  for  politics  and  who  rapidly  kindled  in  the  new 
comer  a  consuming  admiration  for  Andrew  Jackson. 
He  now  began  to  read  with  avidity  such  political  works 
as  came  to  hand.  Discussion  with  his  new  friends 
and  with  his  employer,  who  was  an  ardent  supporter 
of  Adams  and  Clay,  whetted  his  appetite  for  more  read 
ing  and  study.  In  after  years  he  was  wont  to  say  that 
these  were  the  happiest  days  of  his  life.3 

Toward  the  end  of  the  year,  he  became  dissatisfied 
with  his  employer  because  he  was  forced  to  perform 
"some  menial  services  in  the  house."4  He  wished  his 
employer  to  know  that  he  was  not  a  household  servant, 
but  an  apprentice.  Further  difficulties  arose,  which 

1  Wheeler,  Biographical  History  of  Congress,  p.  61;  also  MS.  Auto 
biography. 

2  Troy  Whig,  July  6,  1860.         "MS.  Autobiography.          *  Ibid. 


GEEEN   MOUNTAINS    TO    PRAIRIES  9 

terminated  his  apprenticeship  in  Middlebury.  Beturn- 
ing  to  Brandon,  he  entered  the  shop  of  Deacon  Caleb 
Knowlton,  also  a  cabinet-maker;  but  in  less  than  a 
year  he  quit  this  employer  on  the  plea  of  ill-health.1  It 
is  quite  likely  that  the  confinement  and  severe  manual 
labor  may  have  overtaxed  the  strength  of  the  growing 
boy ;  but  it  is  equally  clear  that  he  had  lost  his  taste  for 
cabinet  work.  He  never  again  expressed  a  wish  to 
follow  a  trade.  He  again  took  up  his  abode  with  his 
mother ;  and,  the  means  now  coming  to  hand  from  some 
source,  he  enrolled  as  a  student  in  Brandon  Academy, 
with  the  avowed  purpose  of  preparing  for  a  profes 
sional  career.2  It  was  a  wise  choice.  Vermont  may 
have  lost  a  skilled  handworker — there  are  those  who 
vouch  for  the  excellence  of  his  handiwork3 — but  the 
Union  gained  a  joiner  of  first-rate  ability. 

Wedding  bells  rang  in  another  change  in  his  fortunes. 
The  marriage  of  his  sister  to  a  young  New  Yorker  from 
Ontario  County,  was  followed  by  the  marriage  of  his 
mother  to  the  father,  Gehazi  Granger.  Both  couples 
took  up  their  residence  on  the  Granger  estate,  and 
thither  also  went  Stephen,  with  perhaps  a  sense  of 
loneliness  in  his  boyish  heart.4  He  was  then  but  seven 
teen.  This  removal  to  New  York  State  proved  to  be 
his  first  step  along  a  path  which  Vermonters  were  wear 
ing  toward  the  West. 

Happily,  his  academic  course  was  not  long  inter 
rupted  by  this  migration,  for  Canandaigua  Academy, 
which  offered  unusual  advantages,  was  within  easy 
reach  from  his  new  home.  Under  the  wise  instruction 
of  Professor  Henry  Howe,  he  began  the  study  of  Latin 

*MS.  Autobiography;  see  Wheeler,  Biographical  History,  p.  62. 
"Ibid.  *Vermonter,  January,  1897.          *  MS.  Autobiography. 


10  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

and  Greek;  and  by  Ms  own  account  made  " consider 
able  improvement,"  though  there  is  little  evidence  in 
his  later  life  of  any  acquaintance  with  the  classics.  He 
took  an  active  part  in  the  doings  of  the  literary  socie 
ties  of  the  academy,  distinguishing  himself  by  his 
readiness  in  debate.  His  Democratic  proclivities  were 
still  strong ;  and  he  became  an  ardent  defender  of  De 
mocracy  against  the  rising  tide  of  Anti-Masonry, 
which  was  threatening  to  sweep  New  York  from  its 
political  moorings.  Tradition  says  that  young 
Douglass  mingled  much  with  local  politicians,  learning 
not  a  little  about  the  arts  and  devices  by  which  the 
Albany  Regency  controlled  the  Democratic  organiza 
tion  in  the  State.  In  this  school  of  practical  politics 
he  was  beyond  a  peradventure  an  apt  pupil. 

A  characteristic  story  is  told  of  Douglass  during 
these  school  days  at  Canandaigua.1  A  youngster  who 
occupied  a  particularly  desirable  seat  at  table  had  been 
ousted  by  another  lad,  who  claimed  a  better  right  to 
the  place.  Some  one  suggested  that  the  claimants 
should  have  the  case  argued  by  counsel  before  a 
board  of  arbitration.  The  dispossessed  boy  lost  his 
case,  because  of  the  superior  skill  with  which  Douglass 
presented  the  claims  of  his  client.  "It  was  the  first 
assertion  of  the  doctrine  of  squatter  sovereignty, ' '  said 
the  defeated  claimant,  recalling  the  incident  years 
afterward,  when  both  he  and  Douglas  were  in  politics. 

Douglass  was  now  maturing  rapidly.  His  ideals  were 
clearer ;  his  native  tastes  more  pronounced.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  already  he  looked  forward  to  politics 
as  a  career.  At  all  events  he  took  the  proximate  step 

1  This  story  was  repeated  to  me  by  Judge  Douglas,  on  the  authority, 
I  believe,  of  Senator  Lapham  of  New  York. 


GREEN   MOUNTAINS    TO    PRAIRIES  11 

toward  that  goal  by  beginning  the  study  of  law  in  the 
office  of  local  attorneys,  at  the  same  time  continuing 
his  studies  begun  in  the  academy.  What  marked  him 
off  from  his  comrades  even  at  this  period  was  his  lively 
acquisitiveness.  He  seemed  to  learn  quite  as  much  by 
indirection  as  by  persevering  application  to  books.1 

In  the  spring  of  1833,  the  same  unrest  that  sent  the 
first  Douglass  across  the  sea  to  the  new  world,  seized 
the  young  man.  Against  the  remonstrances  of  his 
mother  and  his  relatives,  he  started  for  the  great  West 
which  then  spelled  opportunity  to  so  many  young  men. 
He  was  only  twenty  years  old,  and  he  had  not  yet 
finished  his  academic  course ;  but  with  the  impatience 
of  ambition  he  was  reluctant  to  spend  four  more  years 
in  study  before  he  could  gain  admission  to  the  bar.  In 
the  newer  States  of  the  West  conditions  were  easier. 
Moreover,  he  was  no  longer  willing  to  be  a  burden  to 
his  mother,  whose  resources  were  limited.  And  so, 
with  purposes  only  half  formed  and  with  only  enough 
money  for  his  immediate  needs,  he  began,  not  so  much 
a  journey,  as  a  drift  in  a  westerly  direction,  for  he  had 
no  particular  destination  in  view.2 

After  a  short  stay  in  Buffalo  and  a  visit  to  Niagara 
Falls  and  the  battle  ground  of  Chippewa,  the  boy  took 
a  steamboat  to  Cleveland,  where  happily  he  found  a 
friend  in  Sherlock  J.  Andrews,  Esquire,  a  successful 
attorney  and  a  man  of  kindly  impulses.  Finding  the 
city  attractive  and  the  requirements  for  the  Ohio  bar 
less  rigorous,  Douglass  determined  to  drop  anchor  in 
this  pleasant  port.  Mr.  Andrews  encouraged  him  in 

'This  is  the  impression  of  all  who  knew  him  personally,  then  and 
afterward.     See  Arnold,  Eeminiscences  of  the  Illinois  Bar. 
2  MS.  Autobiography. 


12  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

this  purpose,  offering  the  use  of  his  office  and  law 
library.  In  a  single  year  Douglass  hoped  to  gain  ad 
mission  to  the  bar.  With  characteristic  energy,  he 
began  his  studies.  Fate  ruled,  however,  that  his  career 
should  not  be  linked  with  the  Western  Eeserve.  Within 
a  few  days  he  was  prostrated  by  that  foe  which  then 
lurked  in  the  marshes  and  lowlands  of  the  West — foe 
more  dreaded  than  the  redman — malarial  typhoid.  For 
four  weary  months  he  kept  his  bed,  hovering  between 
life  and  death,  until  the  heat  of  summer  was  spent 
and  the  first  frosts  of  October  came  to  revive  him. 
Urgent  appeals  now  came  to  him  to  return  home ;  but 
pride  kept  him  from  yielding.  After  paying  all  his 
bills,  he  still  had  forty  dollars  left.  He  resolved  to 
push  on  farther  into  the  interior.1 

He  was  far  from  well  when  he  took  the  canal  boat 
from  Cleveland  to  Portsmouth  on  the  Ohio  river;  but 
he  was  now  in  a  reckless  and  adventurous  mood.  He 
would  test  his  luck  by  pressing  on  to  Cincinnati.  He 
had  no  well-defined  purpose :  he  was  in  a  listless  mood, 
which  was  no  doubt  partly  the  result  of  physical  ex 
haustion.  From  Cincinnati  he  drifted  on  to  Louis 
ville,  and  then  to  St.  Louis.  His  small  funds  were  now 
almost  all  spent.  He  must  soon  find  occupation  or 
starve.  His  first  endeavor  was  to  find  a  law  office 
where  he  could  earn  enough  by  copying  and  other  work 
to  pay  his  expenses  while  he  continued  his  law  studies. 
No  such  opening  fell  in  his  way  and  he  had  no  letters 
of  introduction  here  to  smooth  his  path.  He  was  now 
convinced  that  he  must  seek  some  small  country  town. 
Hearing  that  Jacksonville,  Illinois,  was  a  thriving 
settlement,  he  resolved  to  try  his  luck  in  this  quarter. 

*MS.  Autobiography. 


GREEN   MOUNTAINS    TO    PRAIRIES  13 

With  much  the  same  desperation  with  which  a  gambler 
plays  his  last  stake,  he  took  passage  on  a  river  boat 
up  the  Illinois,  and  set  foot  upon  the  soil  of  the  great 
prairie  State.1 

A  primitive  stage  coach  plied  between  the  river  and 
Jacksonville.  Too  fatigued  to  walk  the  intervening 
distance,  Douglass  mounted  the  lumbering  vehicle  and 
ruefully  paid  his  fare.  From  this  point  of  vantage  he 
took  in  the  prairie  landscape.  Morgan  County  was 
then  but  sparsely  populated.  Timber  fringed  the 
creeks  and  the  river  bottoms,  while  the  prairie  grass 
grew  rank  over  soil  of  unsuspected  fertility.  Most 
dwellings  were  rude  structures  made  of  rough-hewn 
logs  and  designed  as  makeshifts.  Wildcats  and  wolves 
prowled  through  the  timber  lands  in  winter,  and  game 
of  all  sorts  abounded.2  As  the  stage  swung  lazily 
along,  the  lad  had  ample  time  to  let  the  first  impres 
sion  of  the  prairie  landscape  sink  deep.  In  the  timber, 
the  trees  were  festooned  with  bitter-sweet  and  with 
vines  bearing  wild  grapes ;  in  the  open  country,  noth 
ing  but  unmeasured  stretches  of  waving  grass  caught 
the  eye.3  To  one  born  and  bred  among  the  hills,  this 
broad  horizon  and  unbroken  landscape  must  have  been 
a  revelation.  Weak  as  he  was,  Douglass  drew  in  the 
fresh  autumnal  air  with  zest,  and  unconsciously  bor 
rowed  from  the  face  of  nature  a  sense  of  unbounded 
capacity.  Years  afterward,  when  he  was  famous,  he 
testified,  "I  found  my  mind  liberalized  and  my  opinions 
enlarged,  when  I  got  on  these  broad  prairies,  with  only 
the  heavens  to  bound  my  vision,  instead  of  having 

1MS.  Autobiography. 

2Kirby,  Sketch  of  Joseph  Duncan  in  Fergus  Historical  Series  No. 
29;  also  Historic  Morgan,  p.  60.         *  Ibid. 


14  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

them  circumscribed  by  the  little  ridges  that  surrounded 
the  valley  where  I  was  born. ' n  But  of  all  this  he  was 
unconscious,  when  he  alighted  from  the  stage  in  Jack 
sonville.  He  was  simply  a  wayworn  lad,  without  a 
friend  in  the  town  and  with  only  one  dollar  and  twenty- 
five  cents  in  his  pocket.2 

Jacksonville  was  then  hardly  more  than  a  crowded 
village  of  log  cabins  on  the  outposts  of  civilized  Illi 
nois.3  Comfort  was  not  among  the  first  concerns  of 
those  who  had  come  to  subdue  the  wilderness.  Com 
fort  implied  leisure  to  enjoy,  and  leisure  was  like 
Heaven, — to  be  attained  only  after  a  wearisome  earthly 
pilgrimage.  Jacksonville  had  been  scourged  by  the 
cholera  during  the  summer;  and  those  who  had  es 
caped  the  disease  had  fled  the  town  for  fear  of  it.4  By 
this  time,  however,  the  epidemic  had  spent  itself,  and 
the  refugees  had  returned.  All  told,  the  town  had  a 
population  of  about  one  thousand  souls,  among  whom 
were  no  less  than  eleven  lawyers,  or  at  least  those  who 
called  themselves  such.5 

A  day's  lodging  at  the  Tavern  ate  up  the  remainder 
of  the  wanderer's  funds,  so  that  he  was  forced  to  sell 
a  few  school  books  that  he  had  brought  with  him. 
Meanwhile  he  left  no  stone  unturned  to  find  employ 
ment  to  his  liking.  One  of  his  first  acquaintances  was 
Murray  McConnell,  a  lawyer,  who  advised  him  to  go 
to  Pekin,  farther  up  the  Illinois  Eiver,  and  open  a  law 
office.  The  young  man  replied  that  he  had  no  license 
to  practice  law  and  no  law  books.  He  was  assured 

1  Speech  at  Jonesboro,  in  the  debate  with  Lincoln,  Sept.  15,  1858. 

2  MS.  Autobiography.  8  Kirby,  Joseph  Duncan. 
4  James  S.  Anderson  in  Historic  Morgan. 

6  Peck,  Gazetteer  of  Illinois,  1834. 


GREEN    MOUNTAINS    TO   PRAIRIES  15 

that  a  license  was  a  matter  of  no  consequence,  since 
anyone  could  practice  before  a  justice  of  the  peace, 
and  he  could  procure  one  at  his  leisure.  As  for  books, 
McConnell,  with  true  Western  generosity,  offered 
to  loan  such  as  would  be  of  immediate  use.  So  again 
Douglass  took  up  his  travels.  At  Meredosia,  the  near 
est  landing  on  the  river,  he  waited  a  week  for  the  boat 
upstream.  There  was  no  other  available  route  to 
Pekin.  Then  came  the  exasperating  intelligence,  that 
the  only  boat  which  plied  between  these  points  had 
blown  up  at  Alton.  After  settling  accounts  with  the 
tavern-keeper,  he  found  that  he  had  but  fifty  cents  left.1 

There  was  now  but  one  thing  to  do,  since  hard 
manual  labor  was  out  of  the  question :  he  would  teach 
school.  But  where?  Meredosia  was  a  forlorn,  thrift 
less  place,  and  he  had  no  money  to  travel.  Fortunately, 
a  kind-hearted  farmer  befriended  him,  lodging  him  at 
his  house  over  night  and  taking  him  next  morning  to 
Exeter,  where  there  was  a  prospect  of  securing  a 
school.  Disappointment  again  awaited  him ;  but  Win 
chester,  ten  miles  away,  was  said  to  need  a  teacher. 
Taking  his  coat  on  his  arm — he  had  left  his  trunk  at 
Meredosia — he  set  off  on  foot  for  Winchester.2 

Accident,  happily  turned  to  his  profit,  served  to  in 
troduce  him  to  the  townspeople  of  Winchester.  The 
morning  after  his  arrival,  he  found  a  crowd  in  the 
public  square  and  learned  that  an  auction  sale  of  per 
sonal  effects  was  about  to  take  place.  Everyone  from 
the  administrator  of  the  estate  to  the  village  idler,  was 
eager  for  the  sale  to  begin.  But  a  clerk  to  keep  record 
of  the  sales  and  to  draw  the  notes  was  wanting.  The 
eye  of  the  administrator  fell  upon  Douglass;  some- 

*MS.  Autobiography.  albid. 


16  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

thing  in  the  youth's  appearance  gave  assurance  that 
he  could ' '  cipher. ' '.  The  impatient  bystanders  ' '  'lowed 
that  he  might  do,"  so  he  was  given  a  trial.  Douglass 
proved  fully  equal  to  the  task,  and  in  two  days  was  in 
possession  of  five  dollars  for  his  pains.1 

Through  the  good  will  of  the  village  storekeeper, 
who  also  hailed  from  Vermont,  Douglass  was  presented 
to  several  citizens  who  wished  to  see  a  school  opened 
in  town ;  and  by  the  first  Monday  in  December  he  had 
a  subscription  list  of  forty  scholars,  each  of  whom  paid 
three  dollars  for  three  months'  tuition.2  Luck  was 
now  coming  his  way.  He  found  lodgings  under  the 
roof  of  this  same  friendly  compatriot,  the  village  store 
keeper,  who  gave  him  the  use  of  a  small  room  adjoining 
the  store-room.3  Here  Douglass  spent  his  evenings, 
devoting  some  hours  to  his  law  books  and  perhaps 
more  to  comfortable  chats  with  his  host  and  talkative 
neighbors  around  the  stove.  For  diversion  he  had  the 
weekly  meetings  of  the  Lyceum,  which  had  just  been 
formed.4  He  owed  much  to  this  institution,  for  the 
the  debates  and  discussions  gave  him  a  chance  to  con 
vert  the  traditional  leadership  which  fell  to  him  as 
village  schoolmaster,  into  a  real  leadership  of  talent 
and  ready  wit.  In  this  Lyceum  he  made  his  first  poli 
tical  speech,  defending  Andrew  Jackson  and  his  attack 
upon  the  Bank  against  Josiah  Lamborn,  a  lawyer  from 
Jacksonville.5  For  a  young  man  he  proved  himself 
astonishingly  well-informed.  If  the  chronology  of  his 
autobiography  may  be  accepted,  he  had  already  read 

1MS.  Autobiography.  *  Ibid. 

8  Letter  of  E.  G.  Miner,  January,  1877,  in  Proceedings  of  the  Illinois 
Association  of  Sons  of  Vermont. 

4  Ibid.  *Ibid.;  MS.  Autobiography. 


GREEN   MOUNTAINS    TO    PRAIRIES  17 

the  debates  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1787, 
the  Federalist,  the  works  of  John  Adams  and  Thomas 
Jefferson,  and  the  recent  debates  in  Congress. 

Even  while  he  was  teaching  school,  Douglass  found 
time  to  practice  law  in  a  modest  way  before  the  justices 
of  the  peace;  and  when  the  first  of  March  came,  he 
closed  the  schoolhouse  door  on  his  career  as  peda 
gogue.  He  at  once  repaired  to  Jacksonville  and  pre 
sented  himself  before  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
for  license  to  practice  law.  After  a  short  examination, 
which  could  not  have  been  very  searching,  he  was  duly 
admitted  to  the  bar  of  Illinois.  He  still  lacked  a  month 
of  being  twenty-one  years  of  age.1  Measured  by  the 
standard  of  older  communities  in  the  East,  he  knew 
little  law;  but  there  were  few  cases  in  these  Western 
courts  which  required  much  more  than  common- sense, 
ready  speech,  and  acquaintance  with  legal  procedure. 
Stare  decisis  was  a  maxim  that  did  not  trouble  the 
average  lawyer,  for  there  were  few  decisions  to  stand 
upon.2  Besides,  experience  would  make  good  any  de 
ficiencies  of  preparation. 

1MS.  Autobiography. 

2  Hon,  J,  C.  Conkliug  in  Fergus  Historical  Series,  No.  22. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  EISE  OF  THE  POLITICIAN 

The  young  attorney  who  opened  a  law  office  in  the 
Court  House  at  Jacksonville,  bore  little  resemblance  to 
the  forlorn  lad  who  had  vainly  sought  a  livelihood 
there  some  months  earlier.  The  winter  winds  of  the 
prairies,  so  far  from  racking  the  frame  of  the  convales 
cent,  had  braced  and  toned  his  whole  system.  When 
spring  came,  he  was  in  the  best  of  health  and  full  of 
animal  spirits.  He  entered  upon  his  new  life  with  zest. 
Here  was  a  people  after  his  own  heart;  a  generous, 
wholesome,  optimistic  folk.  He  opened  his  heart  to 
them,  and,  of  course,  hospitable  doors  opened  to  him. 
He  took  society  as  he  found  it,  rude  perhaps,  but  genu 
ine.  With  plenty  of  leisure  at  command,  he  mingled 
freely  with  young  people  of  his  own  age ;  he  joined  the 
'  boisterous  young  fellows  in  their  village  sports;  he 
danced  with  the  maidens;  and  he  did  not  forget  to 
cultivate  the  good  graces  of  their  elders.  Mothers 
liked  his  animation  and  ready  gallantry ;  fathers  found 
him  equally  responsive  on  more  serious  matters  of 
conversation.  Altogether,  he  was  a  very  general  favor 
ite  in  a  not  too  fastidious  society.1 

Nor  was  the  circle  of  the  young  attorney's  acquaint 
ances  limited  to  Jacksonville.  As  the  county  seat  and 
most  important  town  in  Morgan  County,  Jackson 
ville  was  a  sort  of  rural  emporium.  Thither  came 

1  Joseph  Wallace  in  a  letter  to  the  Illinois  State  Eegister,  April  30, 
1899. 

18 


THE   KISE    OF    THE    POLITICIAN  19 

farmers  from  the  country  round  about,  to  market  their 
produce  and  to  purchase  their  supplies.  The  town  had 
an  unwontedly  busy  aspect  on  Saturdays.  This  was 
the  day  which  drew  women  to  town.  While  they  did 
their  shopping,  the  men  loitered  on  street  corners,  or 
around  the  Court  House,  to  greet  old  acquaintances. 
Douglass  was  sure  to  be  found  among  them,  joining 
in  that  most  subtle  of  all  social  processes,  the  forming 
of  public  opinion.  Moving  about  from  group  to  group, 
with  his  pockets  stuffed  with  newspapers,  he  became 
a  familiar  figure.1  Plain  farmers,  in  clothes  soiled  with 
the  rich  loam  of  the  prairies,  enjoyed  hearing  the  young 
fellow  express  so  pointedly  their  own  nascent  convic 
tions. 

This  forum  was  an  excellent  school  for  the  future 
politician.  The  dust  might  accumulate  upon  his  law 
books:  he  was  learning  unwritten  law  in  the  hearts 
of  these  countrymen.  And  yet,  even  at  this  time,  he 
exhibited  a  certain  maturity.  There  seems  never  to 
have  been  a  time  when  the  arts  of  the  politician  were 
not  instinctive  in  him.  He  had  no  boyish  illusions  to 
outlive  regarding  the  nature  and  conditions  of  public 
life.  His  perfect  self-possession  attested  this  mental 
maturity. 

One  of  the  first  friendships  which  the  young  lawyer 
formed  in  his  new  home  was  with  S.  S.  Brooks,  Esq., 
editor  of  the  Jacksonville  News.  While  Douglass  was 
still  in  Winchester,  the  first  issue  of  this  sheet  had 
appeared;  and  he  had  written  a  complimentary  letter 
to  Brooks,  congratulating  him  on  his  enterprise.  The 
grateful  editor  never  forgot  this  kindly  word  of  en- 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  April  30,  1899, 


20  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

couragement.1  The  intimacy  which  followed  was  of 
great  value  to  the  younger  man,  who  needed  just  the 
advertising  which  the  editor  was  in  a  position  to  give. 
The  bond  between  them  was  their  devotion  to  the 
fortunes  of  Andrew  Jackson.  Together  they  labored 
to  consolidate  the  Democratic  forces  of  the  county, 
with  results  which  must  have  surprised  even  the  san 
guine  young  lawyer. 

The  political  situation  in  Morgan  County,  as  the  State 
election  approached,  is  not  altogether  clear.  President 
Jackson 's  high-handed  acts,  particularly  his  attitude 
toward  the  National  Bank,  had  alarmed  many  men 
who  had  supported  him  in  1832.  There  were  defec 
tions  in  the  ranks  of  the  Democracy.  The  State  elec 
tions  would  surely  turn  on  national  issues.  The  Whigs 
were  noisy,  assertive,  and  confident.  Largely  through 
the  efforts  of  Brooks  and  Douglass,  the  Democrats  of 
Jacksonville  were  persuaded  to  call  a  mass-meeting 
of  all  good  Democrats  in  the  county.  It  was  on  this 
occasion,  very  soon  after  his  arrival  in  town,  that 
Douglass  made  his  debut  on  the  political  stage. 

It  is  said  that  accident  brought  the  young  lawyer  into 
prominence  at  this  meeting.  A  well-known  Democrat 
who  was  to  have  presented  resolutions,  demurred,  at 
the  last  minute,  and  thrust  the  copy  into  Douglass* 
hands,  bidding  him  read  them.  The  Court  House  was 
full  to  overflowing  with  interested  observers  of  this 
little  by-play.  Excitement  ran  high,  for  the  opposition 
within  the  party  was  vehement  in  its  protest  to  cut- 
and-dried  resolutions  commending  Jackson.  An  older 
man  with  more  discretion  and  modesty,  would  have 
hesitated  to  face  the  audience ;  but  Douglass  possessed 

1  Sheahan,  Life  of  Douglas,  pp.  16-17. 


THE    RISE    OF    THE    POLITICIAN  21 

neither  retiring  modesty  nor  the  sobriety  which  comes 
with  years.  He  not  only  read  the  resolutions,  but  he 
defended  them  with  such  vigorous  logic  and  with  such 
caustic  criticism  of  Whigs  and  half-hearted  Democrats, 
that  he  carried  the  meeting  with  him  in  tumultuous 
approval  of  the  course  of  Andrew  Jackson,  past  and 
present.1 

The  next  issue  of  the  Patriot,  the  local  Whig  paper, 
devoted  two  columns  to  the  speech  of  this  young  Demo 
cratic  upstart;  and  for  weeks  thereafter  the  editor 
flayed  him  on  all  possible  occasions.  The  result  was 
such  an  enviable  notoriety  for  the  young  attorney 
among  Whigs  and  such  fame  among  Democrats,  that  he 
received  collection  demands  to  the  amount  of  thousands 
of  dollars  from  persons  whom  he  had  never  seen  or 
known.  In  after  years,  looking  back  on  these  begin 
nings,  he  used  to  wonder  whether  he  ought  not  to  have 
paid  the  editor  of  the  Patriot  for  his  abuse,  according 
to  the  usual  advertising  rates.2  The  political  outcome 
was  not  in  every  respect  so  gratifying.  The  Demo 
cratic  county  ticket  was  elected  and  a  Democratic  con 
gressman  from  the  district;  but  the  Whigs  elected 
their  candidate  for  governor. 

A  factional  quarrel  among  members  of  his  own  party 
gave  Douglass  his  reward  for  services  to  the  cause  of 
Democracy,  and  his  first  political  office.  Captain  John 
Wyatt  nursed  a  grudge  against  John  J.  Hardin,  Esq., 
who  had  been  elected  State's  attorney  for  the  district 
through  his  influence,  but  who  had  subsequently  proved 
ungrateful.  Wyatt  had  been  re-elected  member  of  the 

1Sheahan's  account  of  this  incident   (pp.  18-20)   is  confused.     The 
episode  is  told  very  differently  in  the  MS.  Autobiography. 
2  MS.  Autobiography. 


22  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

legislature,  however,  in  spite  of  Hardin 's  opposition, 
and  now  wished  to  revenge  himself,  by  ousting  Hardin 
from  his  office.  With  this  end  in  view,  Wyatt  had 
Douglass  draft  a  bill  making  the  State's  attorneys 
elective  by  the  legislature,  instead  of  subject  to  the 
governor's  appointment.  Since  the  new  governor  was 
a  Whig,  he  could  not  be  used  by  the  Democrats.  The 
bill  met  with  bitter  opposition,  for  it  was  alleged  that 
it  had  no  other  purpose  than  to  vacate  Hardin 's  office 
for  the  benefit  of  Douglass.  This  was  solemnly  denied  j1 
but  when  the  bill  had  been  declared  unconstitutional  by 
the  Council  of  Revision,  Douglass'  friends  made  des 
perate  exertions  to  pass  the  bill  over  the  veto,  with  the 
now  openly  avowed  purpose  to  elect  him  to  the 
office.  The  bill  passed,  and  on  the  10th  of  February, 
1835,  the  legislature  in  joint  session  elected  the  boyish 
lawyer  State's  attorney  for  the  first  judicial  district, 
by  a  majority  of  four  votes  over  an  attorney  of  ex 
perience  and  recognized  merit.  It  is  possible,  as  Doug 
lass  afterward  averred,  that  he  neither  coveted  the 
office  nor  believed  himself  fitted  for  it;  and  that  his 
judgment  was  overruled  by  his  friends.  But  he  ac 
cepted  the  office,  nevertheless. 

When  Douglas, — for  he  had  now  begun  to  drop  the 
superfluous  s  in  the  family  name,  for  simplicity's 
sake,2 — set  out  on  his  judicial  circuit,  he  was  not  an 
imposing  figure.  There  was  little  in  his  boyish  face 
to  command  attention,  except  his  dark-blue,  lustrous 
eyes.  His  big  head  seemed  out  of  proportion  to  his 

*In  the  Autobiography,  Douglas  makes  a  vigorous  defense  of  his 
connection  with  the  whole  affair. 

2  Just  when  he  dropped  the  final  s,  I  am  unable  to  say.  Joseph  Wal 
lace  thinks  that  he  did  so  soon  after  coming  to  Illinois.  See  Transac 
tions  of  the  Illinois  State  Historical  Society,  1901,  p.  114. 


THE    KISE    OF   THE    POLITICIAN  23 

stunted  figure.  He  measured  scarcely  over  five  feet 
and  weighed  less  than  a  hundred  and  ten  pounds. 
Astride  his  horse,  he  looked  still  more  diminutive.  His 
mount  was  a  young  horse  which  he  had  borrowed.  He 
carried  under  his  arm  a  single  book,  also  loaned,  a 
copy  of  the  criminal  law.1  His  chief  asset  was  a  large 
fund  of  Yankee  shrewdness  and  good  nature. 

An  amusing  incident  occurred  in  McLean  County 
at  the  first  court  which  Douglas  attended.  There 
were  many  indictments  to  be  drawn,  and  the  new  prose 
cuting  attorney,  in  his  haste,  misspelled  the  name  of  the 
county — M  Clean  instead  of  M'Lean.  His  professional 
brethren  were  greatly  amused  at  this  evidence  of  inex 
perience  ;  and  made  merry  over  the  blunder.  Finally, 
John  T.  Stuart,  subsequently  Douglas's  political  rival, 
moved  that  all  the  indictments  be  quashed.  Judge 
Logan  asked  the  discomfited  youth  what  he  had  to  say 
to  support  the  indictments.  Smarting  under  the  gibes 
of  Stuart,  Douglas  replied  obstinately  that  he  had 
nothing  to  say,  as  he  supposed  the  Court  would  not 
quash  the  indictments  until  the  point  had  been 
proven.  This  answer  aroused  more  merriment;  but 
the  Judge  decided  that  the  Court  could  not  rule  upon 
the  matter,  until  the  precise  spelling  in  the  statute 
creating  the  county  had  been  ascertained.  No  one 
doubted  what  the  result  would  be ;  but  at  least  Douglas 
had  the  satisfaction  of  causing  his  critics  some  annoy 
ance  and  two  days'  delay,  for  the  statutes  had  to  be 
procured  from  an  adjoining  county.  To  the  astonish 
ment  of  Court  and  Bar,  and  of  Douglas  himself,  it 
appeared  that  Douglas  had  spelled  the  name  correctly. 
To  the  indescribable  chagrin  of  the  learned  Stuart,  the 

'Joseph  Wallace  in  the  Illinois  State  'Register,  April  30,  1899. 


24  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

Court  promptly  sustained  all  the  indictments.  The 
young  attorney  was  in  high  feather ;  and  he  made  the 
most  of  his  triumph.  The  incident  taught  him  a  useful 
lesson:  henceforth  he  would  admit  nothing,  and  re 
quire  his  opponents  to  prove  everything  that  bore  upon 
the  case  in  hand.  Some  time  later,  upon  comparing 
the  printed  statute  of  the  county  with  the  enrolled  bill 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  Douglas  found 
that  the  printer  had  made  a  mistake  and  that  the  name 
of  the  county  should  have  been  M'Lean.1 

On  the  whole  Douglas  seems  to  have  discharged  his 
not  very  onerous  duties  acceptably.  The  more  his 
fellow  practitioners  saw  of  him,  the  more  respect  they 
had  for  him.  Moreover,  they  liked  him  personally. 
His  wholesome  frankness  disarmed  ill-natured  op 
ponents  ;  his  generosity  made  them  fast  friends.  There 
was  not  an  inn  or  hostelry  in  the  circuit,  which  did  not 
welcome  the  sight  of  the  talkative,  companionable, 
young  district  attorney. 

Politically  as  well  as  socially,  Illinois  was  in  a  transi 
tional  stage.  Although  political  parties  existed,  they 
were  rather  loose  associations  of  men  holding  similar 
political  convictions  than  parties  in  the  modern  sense 
with  permanent  organs  of  control.  He  who  would 
might  stand  for  office,  either  announcing  his  own 
candidacy  in  the  newspapers,  or  if  his  modesty  forbade 
this  course,  causing  such  an  announcement  to  be  made 
by  "many  voters."  In  benighted  districts,  where  the 
light  of  the  press  did  not  shine,  the  candidate  offered 

1  Douglas  tells  the  story  with  great  relish  in  his  autobiography.  The 
title  of  the  act  reads  "An  Act  creating  M'Lean  County, "  but  the 
body  of  the  act  gives  the  name  as  McLean.  Douglas  had  used  the  exact 
letters  of  the  name,  though  he  had  twisted  the  capital  letters,  writing 
a  capital  C  for  a  capital  L. 


THE    RISE    OF   THE    POLITICIAN  25 

himself  in  person.  Even  after  the  advent  of  Andrew 
Jackson  in  national  politics,  allegiance  to  party  was 
so  far  subordinated  to  personal  ambition,  that  it  was 
no  uncommon  occurrence  for  several  candidates  from 
each  party  to  enter  the  lists.1  From  the  point  of  view 
of  party,  this  practice  was  strategically  faulty,  since 
there  was  always  the  possibility  that  the  opposing 
party  might  unite  on  a  single  candidate.  What  was 
needed  to  insure  the  success  of  party  was  the  rationale 
of  an  army.  But  organization  was  abhorrent  to  people 
so  tenacious  of  their  personal  freedom  as  Illinoisans, 
because  organization  necessitated  the  subordination  of 
the  individual  to  the  centralized  authority  of  the  group. 
To  the  average  man  organization  spelled  dictation. 

The  first  step  in  the  effective  control  of  nominations 
by  party  in  Illinois,  was  taken  by  certain  Democrats, 
foremost  among  whom  was  S.  A.  Douglas,  Esq.  His 
rise  as  a  politician,  indeed,  coincides  with  this  develop 
ment  of  party  organization  and  machinery.  The  move 
ment  began  sporadically  in  several  counties.  At  the 
instance  of  Douglas  and  his  friend  Brooks  of  the  News, 
the  Democrats  of  Morgan  County  put  themselves  on 
record  as  favoring  a  State  convention  to  choose  dele 
gates  to  the  national  convention  of  1836.2  County 
after  county  adopted  the  suggestion,  until  the  move 
ment  culminated  in  a  well-attended  convention  at  Van- 
dalia  in  April,  1835.  Not  all  counties  were  represented, 
to  be  sure,  and  no  permanent  organization  was  ef 
fected  ;  but  provision  was  made  for  a  second  conven 
tion  in  December,  to  nominate  presidential  electors.3 
Among  the  delegates  from  Morgan  County  in  this 

1  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  285-286 ;  see  contemporary  newspapers. 

2  Illinois  Advocate,  May  4,  1835.  8  Ibid.,  May  6,  1835. 


26  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

December  convention  was  Douglas,  burning  with  zeal 
for  the  consolidation  of  his  party.  Signs  were  not 
wanting  that  he  was  in  league  with  other  zealots  to 
execute  a  sort  of  coup  d'etat  within  the  party.  Early 
in  the  session,  one  Ebenezer  Peck,  recently  from 
Canada,  boldly  proposed  that  the  convention  should 
proceed  to  nominate  not  only  presidential  electors  but 
candidates  for  State  offices  as  well.  A  storm  of  pro 
tests  broke  upon  his  head,  and  for  the  moment  he  was 
silenced;  but  on  the  second  day,  he  and  his  confidants 
succeeded  in  precipitating  a  general  discussion  of  the 
convention  system.  Peck — contemptuously  styled  ' '  the 
Canadian"  by  his  enemies — secured  the  floor  and 
launched  upon  a  vigorous  defense  of  the  nominating 
convention  as  a  piece  of  party  machinery.  He  thought 
it  absurd  to  talk  of  a  man's  having  a  right  to  become  a 
candidate  for  office  without  the  indorsement  of  his 
party.  He  believed  it  equally  irrational  to  allow  mem 
bers  of  the  party  to  consult  personal  preferences  in 
voting.  The  members  of  the  party  must  submit  to  dis 
cipline,  if  they  expected  to  secure  control  of  office.  Con 
fusion  again  reigned.  The  presiding  officer  left  the 
chair  precipitately,  denouncing  the  notions  of  Peck  as 
anti-republican.1 

In  the  exciting  wrangle  that  followed,  Douglas  was 
understood  to  say  that  he  had  seen  the  workings  of  the 
nominating  convention  in  New  York,  and  he  knew  it  to 
be  the  only  way  to  manage  elections  successfully.  The 
opposition  had  overthrown  the  great  DeWitt  Clinton 
only  by  organizing  and  adopting  the  convention  system. 
Gentlemen  were  mistaken  who  feared  that  the  people 
of  the  West  had  enjoyed  their  own  opinions  too  long 

1  Illinois  Advocate,  Dec.  17,  1835;   Sangamo  Journal,  Feb.  6,  1836. 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   POLITICIAN  27 

to  submit  quietly  to  the  wise  regulations  of  a  conven 
tion.  He  knew  them  better:  he  had  himself  had  the 
honor  of  introducing  the  nominating  convention  into 
Morgan  County,  where  it  had  already  prostrated  one 
individual  high  in  office.  These  wise  admonitions  from 
a  mere  stripling  failed  to  mollify  the  conservatives. 
The  meeting  broke  up  in  disorder,  leaving  the  party 
with  divided  counsels.1 

Successful  county  and  district  conventions  did  much 
to  break  down  the  resistance  to  the  system.  During  the 
following  months,  Morgan  County,  and  the  congres 
sional  district  to  which  it  belonged,  became  a  political 
experiment  station.  A  convention  at  Jacksonville  in 
April  not  only  succeeded  in  nominating  one  candidate 
for  each  elective  office,  but  also  in  securing  the  support 
of  the  disappointed  aspirants  for  office,  which  under 
the  circumstances  was  in  itself  a  triumph.2  Taking 
their  cue  from  the  enemy,  the  Whigs  of  Morgan  County 
also  united  upon  a  ticket  for  the  State  offices,  at  the 
head  of  which  was  John  J.  Hardin,  a  formidable  cam 
paigner.  When  the  canvass  was  fairly  under  way,  not 
a  man  could  be  found  on  the  Democratic  ticket  to  hold 
his  own  with  Hardin  on  the  hustings.  The  ticket  was 
then  reorganized  so  as  to  make  a  place  for  Douglas, 
who  was  already  recognized  as  one  of  the  ablest  de 
baters  in  the  county.  Just  how  this  transposition  was 
effected  is  not  clear.  Apparently  one  of  the  nominees 
of  the  convention  for  State  representative  was  per 
suaded  to  withdraw.3  The  Whigs  promptly  pointed 

1  Sangamo  Journal,  February  6,  1836. 

2  There  was  one  exception,  see  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  26. 
3Sheahan,  Douglas,   p.    26;   Wheeler,   Biographical  History,  p.   67; 

Sangamo  Journal,  May  7,  1836. 


28  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

out  the  inconsistency  of  this  performance.  "What 
are  good  Democrats  to  do?"  asked  the  Sangamo  Jour 
nal  mockingly.  Douglas  had  told  them  to  vote  for  no 
man  who  had  not  been  nominated  by  a  caucus  I1 

The  Democrats  committed  also  another  tactical 
blunder.  The  county  convention  had  adjourned  with 
out  appointing  delegates  to  the  congressional  district 
convention,  which  was  to  be  held  at  Peoria.  Such  of 
the  delegates  as  had  remained  in  town,  together  with 
resident  Democrats,  were  hastily  reassembled  to  make 
good  this  omission.2  Douglas  and  eight  others  were 
accredited  to  the  Peoria  convention;  but  when  they 
arrived,  they  found  only  four  other  delegates  present, 
one  from  each  of  four  counties.  Nineteen  counties 
were  unrepresented.3  Evidently  there  was  little  or  no 
interest  in  this  political  innovation.  In  no  wise  dis 
heartened,  however,  these  thirteen  delegates  declared 
themselves  a  duly  authorized  district  convention  and 
put  candidates  in  nomination  for  the  several  offices. 
Again  the  Whig  press  scored  their  opponents.  "Our 
citizens  cannot  be  led  at  the  dictation  of  a  dozen  un 
authorized  individuals,  but  will  act  as  freemen,"  said 
the  Sangamo  Journal.4"  There  were  stalwart  Demo 
crats,  too,  who  refused  to  put  on  "the  Caucus  collar." 
Douglas  and  his  "Peoria  Humbug  Convention"  were 
roundly  abused  on  all  sides.  The  young  politician 
might  have  replied,  and  doubtless  did  reply,  that  the 
rank  and  file  had  not  yet  become  accustomed  to  the 
system,  and  that  the  bad  roads  and  inclement  weather 
were  largely  responsible  for  the  slim  attendance  at 
Peoria. 

1  Sangamo  Journal,  May  7,  1836. 

2  Hid.  *  Ibid.,  May  14,  1836.  4  Hid. 


THE    RISE    OF    THE    POLITICIAN  29 

The  campaign  was  fought  with  the  inevitable  con 
comitants  of  an  Illinois  election.  The  weapons  that  slew 
the  adversary  were  not  always  forged  by  logic.  In 
rude  regions,  where  the  rougher  border  element  con 
gregated,  country  stores  were  subsidized  by  candidates, 
and  liquor  liberally  dispensed.  The  candidate  who  re 
fused  to  treat  was  doomed.  He  was  the  last  man  to 
get  a  hearing,  when  the  crowds  gathered  on  Saturday 
nights  to  hear  the  candidates  discuss  the  questions  at 
issue.  To  speak  from  an  improvised  rostrum — "the 
stump " — to  a  boisterous  throng  of  men  who  had  al 
ready  accepted  the  orator's  hospitality  at  the  store, 
was  no  light  ordeal.  This  was  the  school  of  oratory 
in  which  Douglas  was  trained.1 

The  election  of  all  but  one  of  the  Democratic  nom 
inees  was  hailed  as  a  complete  vindication  of  the 
nominating  convention  as  a  piece  of  party  machinery. 
Douglas  shared  the  elation  of  his  fellow  workers,  even 
though  he  was  made  to  feel  that  his  nomination  was 
not  due  to  this  much-vaunted  caucus  system.  At  all 
events,  the  value  of  organization  and  discipline  had 
been  demonstrated.  The  day  of  the  professional  poli 
tician  and  of  the  machine  was  dawning  in  the  frontier 
State  of  Illinois. 

During  the  campaign  there  had  been  much  wild  talk 
about  internal  improvements.  The  mania  which  had 
taken  possession  of  the  people  in  most  Western  States 
had  affected  the  grangers  of  Illinois.  It  amounted  to 
an  obsession.  The  State  was  called  upon  to  use  its 
resources  and  unlimited  credit  to  provide  a  market  for 
their  produce,  by  supplying  transportation  facilities 
for  every  aspiring  community.  Elsewhere  State  credit 

1  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  103-105. 


30  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

was  building  canals  and  railroads :  why  should  Illinois, 
so  generously  endowed  by  nature,  lag  behind?  Where 
crops  were  spoiling  for  a  market,  farmers  were  not 
disposed  to  inquire  into  the  mysteries  of  high  finance 
and  the  nature  of  public  credit.  All  doubts  were  laid 
to  rest  by  the  magic  phrase  "natural  resources."1 
Mass-meetings  here  and  there  gave  propulsion  to  the 
movement.2  Candidates  for  State  office  were  forced 
to  make  the  maddest  pledges.  A  grand  demonstration 
was  projected  at  Vandalia  just  as  the  legislature 
assembled. 

The  legislature  which  met  in  December,  1836,  is  one 
of  the  most  memorable,  and  least  creditable,  in  the 
annals  of  Illinois.  In  full  view  of  the  popular  demon 
strations  at  the  capital,  the  members  could  not  re 
mained  unmoved  and  indifferent  to  the  demands  of 
their  constituents,  if  they  wished.  Besides,  the  great 
majority  were  already  committed  in  favor  of  internal 
improvements  in  some  form.  The  subject  dwarfed  all 
others.  For  a  time  two  sessions  a  day  were  held ;  and 
special  committees  prolonged  their  labors  far  into  the 
night.  Petitions  from  every  quarter  deluged  the 
assembly.3 

A  plan  for  internal  improvements  had  already  taken 
shape  in  the  mind  of  the  young  representative  from 
Morgan  County.4  He  made  haste  to  lay  it  before  his 
colleagues.  First  of  all,  he  would  have  the  State  com 
plete  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  canal,  and  improve 
the  navigation  of  the  Illinois  and  Wabash  rivers.  Then 

'See  letter  of  "M— "  in  the  Illinois  State  Register,  July  29,  1836. 

2  Illinois  State  Register,  October  28,  1836. 

8  Ibid.,  December  8,  1836. 

*Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  29;  MS.  Autobiography. 


THE    KISE    OF   THE   POLITICIAN  31 

he  would  have  two  railroads  constructed  which  would 
cross  the  State  from  north  to  south,  and  from  east  to 
west.  For  these  purposes  he  would  negotiate  a  loan, 
pledging  the  credit  of  the  State,  and  meet  the  interest 
payments  by  judicious  sales  of  the  public  lands  which 
had  been  granted  by  the  Federal  government  for  the 
construction  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  canal.  The 
most  creditable  feature  of  these  proposals  is  their 
moderation.  This  youth  of  twenty-three  evinced  far 
more  conservatism  than  many  colleagues  twice  his 
age. 

There  was  not  the  slightest  prospect,  however,  that 
moderate  views  would  prevail.  Log-rolling  had  al 
ready  begun ;  the  lobby  was  active ;  and  every  member 
of  the  legislature  who  had  pledged  himself  to  his  con 
stituents  was  solicitous  that  his  section  of  the  State 
should  not  be  passed  over,  in  the  general  scramble  for 
appropriations.  In  the  end  a  bill  was  drawn,  which 
proposed  to  appropriate  no  less  than  $10,230,000  for 
public  works.  A  sum  of  $500,000  was  set  aside  for 
river  improvements,  but  the  remainder  was  to  be  ex 
pended  in  the  construction  of  eight  railroads.  A  sop 
of  $200,000  was  tossed  to  those  counties  through  which 
no  canal  or  railroad  was  to  pass.1  What  were  prudent 
men  to  do!  Should  they  support  this  bill,  which  they 
believed  to  be  thoroughly  pernicious,  or  incur  the  dis 
pleasure  of  their  constituents  by  defeating  this,  and 
probably  every  other,  project  for  the  session?  Douglas 
was  put  in  a  peculiarly  trying  position.  He  had  op 
posed  this  "mammoth  bill,"  but  he  knew  his  constit 
uents  favored  it.  With  great  reluctance,  he  voted  for 

'Act  of  February  27,  1837. 


32  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

the  bill.1  He  was  not  minded  to  immolate  himself  on 
the  altar  of  public  economy  at  the  very  threshold  of  his 
career.2 

Much  the  same  issue  was  forced  upon  Douglas  in 
connection  with  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  canal.  Un 
expected  obstacles  to  the  construction  of  the  canal  had 
been  encountered.  To  allow  the  waters  of  Lake  Michi 
gan  to  flow  through  the  projected  canal,  it  was  found 
that  a  cut  eighteen  feet  deep  would  have  to  be  made 
for  twenty-eight  miles  through  solid  rock.  The  cost  of 
such  an  undertaking  would  exceed  the  entire  appropria 
tion.  It  was  then  suggested  that  a  shallow  cut  might 
be  made  above  the  level  of  Lake  Michigan  which  would 
then  permit  the  Calumet  Eiver  or  the  Des  Plaines,  to  be 
used  as  a  feeder.  The  problem  was  one  for  expert 
engineers  to  solve;  but  it  devolved  upon  an  ignorant 
assembly,  which  seems  to  have  done  its  best  to  reduce 
the  problem  to  a  political  equation.  A  majority  of  the 
House — Douglas  among  them — favored  a  shallow  cut, 
while  the  Senate  voted  for  the  deep  cut.  The  deadlock 
continued  for  some  weeks,  until  a  conference  committee 
succeeded  in  agreeing  upon  the  Senate's  programme. 
As  a  member  of  the  conferring  committee,  Douglas 
vigorously  opposed  this  settlement,  but  on  the  final  vote 
in  the  House  he  yielded  his  convictions.  In  after  years 
he  took  great  satisfaction  in  pointing  out — as  evidence 
of  his  prescience — that  the  State  became  financially 

1  In  his  Autobiography  Douglas   says   that  the  friends    of   the   bill 
persuaded  his  constituents  to  instruct  him  to  vote  for  the  bill;  hence  his 
affirmative  vote  was  the  vote  of  his  constituents. 

2  Douglas   was   in   good   company   at    all  events.      Abraham   Lincoln 
was  one  of  those  who  voted  for  the  bill. 


THE   EISE    OF   THE   POLITICIAN  33 

embarrassed  and  had  finally  to  adopt  the  shallow  cut.1 
The  members  of  the  10th  General  Assembly  have  not 
been  wont  to  point  with  pride  to  their  record.  With  a 
few  notable  exceptions  they  had  fallen  victims  to  a 
credulity  which  had  become  epidemic.  When  the  as 
sembly  of  1840  repealed  this  magnificent  act  for  the 
improvement  of  Illinois,  they  encountered  an  accumu 
lated  indebtedness  of  over  $14,000,000.  There  are 
other  aspects  of  the  assembly  of  1836-37  upon  which  it 
is  pleasanter  to  dwell. 

As  chairman  of  a  committee  on  petitions  Douglas 
rendered  a  real  service  to  public  morality.  The  gen 
eral  assembly  had  been  wont  upon  petition  to 
grant  divorces  by  special  acts.  Before  the  legislature 
had  been  in  session  ten  days,  no  less  than  four  petitions 
for  divorces  had  been  received.  It  was  a  custom  re 
flecting  little  credit  upon  the  State.2  Eeporting  for  his 
committee,  Douglas  contended  that  the  legislature  had 
no  power  to  grant  divorces,  but  only  to  enact  salutary 
laws,  which  should  state  the  circumstances  under  which 
divorces  might  be  granted  by  the  courts.  The  existing 
practice,  he  argued,  was  contrary  to  those  provisions 
of  the  constitution  which  expressly  separated  the  three 
departments  of  government.  Moreover,  everyone  rec 
ognized  the  injustice  and  unwisdom  of  dissolving 
marriage  contracts  by  act  of  legislature,  upon  ex  parte 
evidence.3  Without  expressing  an  opinion  on  the  con 
stitutional  questions  involved,  the  assembly  accepted 
the  main  recommendation  of  the  committee,  that  hence- 

1  See  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  Chapter  40 ;  Wheeler, 
Biographical  History,  pp.  68-70;  Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  32-33. 

2  But  it  was  no  worse  than  the  English  custom  before  the  Act  of  1857. 
8  House  Journal,  p.  62. 

3 


34  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

forth  the  legislature  should  not  grant  bills  of  divorce.1 
One  of  the  recurring  questions  during  this  session 
was  whether  the  State  capital  should  be  moved.  Van- 
dalia  was  an  insignificant  town,  difficult  of  access  and 
rapidly  falling  far  south  of  the  center  of  population 
in  the  State.  Springfield  was  particularly  desirous 
to  become  the  capital,  though  there  were  other  towns 
which  had  claims  equally  strong.  The  Sangamon 
County  delegation  was  annoyingly  aggressive  in  behalf 
of  their  county  seat.  They  were  a  conspicuous  group, 
not  merely  because  of  their  stature,  which  earned  for 
them  the  nickname  of  "the  Long  Nine,"  but  also  be 
cause  they  were  men  of  real  ability  and  practical 
shrewdness.  By  adroit  management,  a  vote  was  first 
secured  to  move  the  capital  from  Vandalia,  and  then 
to  locate  it  at  Springfield.  Unquestionably  there  was 
some  trading  of  votes  in  return  for  special  conces 
sions  in  the  Internal  Improvements  bill.  It  is  said  that 
Abraham  Lincoln  was  the  virtual  head  of  the  Sanga 
mon  delegation,  and  the  chief  promoter  of  the  project.2 
Soon  after  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature, 
Douglas  resigned  his  seat  to  become  Eegister  of  the 
Land  Office  at  Springfield;  and  when  "the  Long  Nine" 
returned  to  their  constituents  and  were  feted  and 
banqueted  by  the  grateful  citizens  of  Springfield, 
Douglas  sat  among  the  guests  of  honor.3  It  began  to 
be  rumored  about  that  the  young  man  owed  his  ap 
pointment  to  the  Sangamon  delegation,  whose  schemes 
he  had  industriously  furthered  in  the  legislature. 

1  The  assembly  substituted  the  word  ' '  inexpedient ' '  for  ' '  unconsti 
tutional,  ' '  in  the  resolution  submitted  by  Douglas.    House  Journal,  p.  62. 
2Nicolay  and  Hay,  Abraham  Lincoln,  I,  pp.  137-138. 
*Tbid.,  p.  139. 


THE    RISE    OF   THE   POLITICIAN  35 

Finally,  the  Illinois  Patriot  made  the  direct  accusa 
tion  of  bargain.1  Touched  to  the  quick,  Douglas  wrote 
a  letter  to  the  editor  which  fairly  bristles  with  right 
eous  indignation.  His  circumstantial  denial  of  the 
charge, — his  well-known  opposition  to  the  removal  of 
the  capital  and  to  all  the  schemes  of  the  Sangamon 
delegation  during  the  session, — cleared  him  of  all  com 
plicity.  Indeed,  Douglas  was  too  zealous  a  partisan  to 
play  into  the  hands  of  the  Sangamon  Whigs.2 

The  advent  of  the  young  Eegister  at  the  Land  Office 
was  noted  by  the  Sangamo  Whig  Journal  in  these 
words:  "The  Land  Office  at  this  place  was  opened  on 
Monday  last.  We  are  told  the  little  man  from  Morgan 
was  perfectly  astonished,  at  finding  himself  making 
money  at  the  rate  of  from  one  to  two  hundred  dollars 
a  day!"3  This  sarcastic  comment  is  at  least  good  evi 
dence  that  the  office  was  doing  a  thriving  business.  In 
two  respects  Douglas  had  bettered  himself  by  this 
change  of  occupation.  He  could  not  afford  to  hold  his 
seat  in  the  legislature  with  its  small  salary.  Now  he 
was  assured  of  a  competence.  Besides,  as  a  resident  of 
Springfield,  he  could  keep  in  touch  with  politics  at  the 
future  capital  and  bide  his  time  until  he  was  again 
promoted  for  conspicuous  service  to  his  party. 

The  educative  value  of  his  new  office  was  no  small 
consideration  to  the  young  lawyer.  He  not  only  kept 
the  records  and  plans  of  surveys  within  his  district, 
but  put  up  each  tract  at  auction,  in  accordance  with 

1  Transactions  of  the  Illinois  State  Historical  Society,  1901,  p.  111. 

2  Transactions    of    the    Illinois    State    Historical    Society,    1901,    pp. 
111-112.     The    Sangamo   Journal,   August   5,    1837,   says   that   Douglas 
owed  his  appointment  to  the  efforts  of  Senator  Young  in  his  behalf. 

8  Sangamo  Journal,  August  29,  1837. 


36  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

the  proclamation  of  the  President,  and  issued  certifi 
cates  of  sale  to  all  purchasers,  describing  the  land 
purchased.  The  duties  were  not  onerous,  but  they  re 
quired  considerable  familiarity  with  land  laws  and 
with  the  practical  difficulties  arising  from  imperfect 
surveys,  pre-emption  rights,  and  conflicting  claims.1 
Daily  contact  with  the  practical  aspects  of  the  public 
land  policy  of  the  country,  seems  to  have  opened  his 
eyes  to  the  significance  of  the  public  domain  as  a  na 
tional  asset.  With  all  his  realism,  Douglas  was  gifted 
with  a  certain  sort  of  imagination  in  things  political. 
He  not  only  saw  what  was  obvious  to  the  dullest 
clerk, — the  revenue  derived  from  land  sales, — but 
also  those  intangible  and  prospective  gains  which 
would  accrue  to  State  and  nation  from  the  occupation 
and  cultivation  of  the  national  domain.  He  came  to 
believe  that,  even  if  not  a  penny  came  into  the  treasury, 
the  government  would  still  be  richer  from  having  par 
celled  out  the  great  uninhabited  wastes  in  the  West. 
Beneath  the  soiled  and  uncomely  exterior  of  the  West 
ern  pioneer,  native  or  foreigner,  Douglas  discerned 
not  only  a  future  tax-bearer,  but  the  founder  of  Com 
monwealths. 

Only  isolated  bits  of  tradition  throw  light  upon  the 
daily  life  of  the  young  Eegister  of  the  Land  Office.  All 
point  to  the  fact  that  politics  was  his  absorbing  in 
terest.  He  had  no  avocations ;  he  had  no  private  life, 
no  esoteric  tastes  which  invite  a  prying  curiosity;  he 
had  no  subtle  aspects  of  character  and  temperament 
which  sometimes  make  even  commonplace  lives  dra 
matic.  His  life  was  lived  in  the  open.  Lodging  at  the 

1  Douglas  describes  his  duties  in  Cutts,  Const,  and  Party  Questions, 
pp.  160  ff. 


THE    RISE    OF   THE    POLITICIAN  37 

American  Tavern,  lie  was  always  seen  in  company 
with  other  men.  Diller's  drug-store,  near  the  old 
market,  was  a  familiar  rendezvous  for  him  and  his 
boon  companions.  Just  as  he  had  no  strong  interests 
which  were  not  political,  so  his  intimates  were  likely 
to  be  his  political  confreres.  He  had  no  literary  tastes : 
if  he  read  at  all,  he  read  law  or  politics.1  Yet  while 
these  characteristics  suggest  narrowness,  they  were 
perhaps  the  inevitable  outcome  of  a  society  possessing 
few  cultural  resources  and  refinements,  but  tremen 
dous  directness  of  purpose. 

One  of  the  haunts  of  Douglas  in  these  Springfield 
days  was  the  office  of  the  Republican,  a  Democratic 
journal  then  edited  by  the  Webers.  There  he  picked 
up  items  of  political  gossip  and  chatted  with  the 
chance  comer,  or  with  habitues  like  himself.  He  was 
a  welcome  visitor,  just  the  man  whom  a  country  editor, 
mauling  over  hackneyed  matter,  likes  to  have  stimulate 
his  flagging  wits  with  a  jest  or  a  racy  anecdote.  Now 
and  then  Douglas  would  take  up  a  pen  good-naturedly, 
and  scratch  off  an  editorial  which  would  set  Spring 
field  politicians  by  the  ears.  The  tone  of  the  Republi 
can,  as  indeed  of  the  Western  press  generally  at  this 
time,  was  low.  Editors  of  rival  newspapers  heaped 
abuse  upon  each  other,  without  much  regard  to  either 
truth  or  decency.  Feuds  were  the  inevitable  product 
of  these  editorial  amenities. 

On  one  occasion,  the  Republican  charged  the  com 
missioners  appointed  to  supervise  the  building  of  the 
new  State  House  in  Springfield,  with  misuse  of  the 
public  funds.  The  commissioners  made  an  apparently 

1  Conversation  with  Charles  A.  Keyes,  Esq.,  of  Springfield,  and  with 
Dr.  A.  W.  French,  also  of  Springfield,  Illinois. 


38  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

straightforward  defense  of  their  expenditures.  The 
Republican  doubted  the  statement  and  reiterated  the 
charge  in  scurrilous  language.  Then  the  aggrieved 
commissioners,  accompanied  by  their  equally  exasper 
ated  friends,  descended  upon  the  office  of  the  Republi 
can  to  take  summary  vengeance.  It  so  happened  that 
Douglas  was  at  the  moment  comfortably  ensconced  in 
the  editorial  sanctum.  He  could  hardly  do  otherwise 
than  assist  in  the  defense;  indeed,  it  is  more  than 
likely  that  he  had  provoked  the  assault.  In  the  dis 
graceful  brawl  that  followed,  the  attacking  party  was 
beaten  off  with  heavy  losses.  Sheriff  Elkins,  who 
seems  to  have  been  acting  in  an  unofficial  capacity  as  a 
friend  of  the  commissioners,  was  stabbed,  though  not 
fatally,  by  one  of  the  Weber  brothers.1 

From  such  unedifying  episodes  in  the  career  of  a 
rising  politician,  public  attention  was  diverted  by  the 
excitement  of  a  State  election.  Since  the  abortive 
attempts  to  commit  the  Democratic  party  to  the  con 
vention  system  in  1835,  party  opinion  had  grown  more 
favorable  to  the  innovation.  Rumors  that  the  Whigs 
were  about  to  unite  upon  a  State  ticket  doubtless 
hastened  the  conversion  of  many  Democrats.2  When 
the  legislature  met  for  a  special  session  in  July,  the 
leading  spirits  in  the  reform  movement  held  frequent 
consultations,  the  outcome  of  which  was  a  call  for  a 
Democratic  State  convention  in  December.  Every 
county  was  invited  to  send  delegates.  A  State  com 
mittee  of  fifteen  was  appointed,  and  each  county  was 

1  Sangamo  Journal,  July  1,   1837.     The  newspaper  accounts  of  this 
affair  are  confusing;   but  they  are  in  substantial  agreement  as  to  the 
causes  and  outcome  of  the  attack  upon  the  office  of  the  Republican. 

2  Illinois  State  Register,  July  22,  1837. 


THE   RISE    OF   THE   POLITICIAN  39 

urged  to  form  a  similar  committee.  Another  com 
mittee  was  also  created — the  Committee  of  Thirty — to 
prepare  an  address  to  the  voters.  Fifth  on  this  latter 
committee  was  the  name  of  S.  A.  Douglas  of  Sanga- 
mon.1  The  machinery  of  the  party  was  thus  created 
out  of  hand  by  a  group  of  unauthorized  leaders.  They 
awaited  the  reaction  of  the  insoluble  elements  in  the 
party,  with  some  anxiety. 

The  new  organization  had  no  more  vigilant  defender 
than  Douglas.  From  his  coign  of  vantage  in  the  Land 
Office,  he  watched  the  trend  of  opinion  within  the  party, 
not  forgetting  to  observe  at  the  same  time  the  move 
ments  of  the  Whigs.  There  were  certain  phrases  in 
the  "Address  to  the  Democratic  Eepublicans  of  Illi 
nois"  which  may  have  been  coined  in  his  mint.  The 
statement  that  "the  Democratic  Eepublicans  of  Illinois 
propose  to  bring  theirs  [their  candidates]  forward 
by  the  full  and  consentaneous  voice  of  every  member 
of  their  political  association,"  has  a  familiar,  full- 
mouthed  quality.2  The  Democrats  of  Sangamon  called 
upon  him  to  defend  the  caucus  at  a  mass-meeting ;  and 
when  they  had  heard  his  eloquent  exposition  of  the  new 
System,  they  resolved  with  great  gravity  that  it 
offered  "the  only  safe  and  proper  way  of  securing 
union  and  victory."3  There  is  something  amusing  in 
the  confident  air  of  this  political  expert  aged  twenty- 
four;  yet  there  is  no  disputing  the  fact  that  his  words 
carried  weight  with  men  of  far  wider  experience  than 
his  own. 

Before  many  weeks  of  the  campaign  had  passed, 
Douglas  had  ceased  to  be  merely  a  consultative  spe- 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  July  22,  1837. 

2  Ibid.,  November  4,  1837.  9  Ibid.,  October  27,  1837. 


40  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

cialist  on  party  ailments.  Not  at  all  unwillingly,  he  was 
drawn  into  active  service.  It  was  commonly  supposed 
that  the  Honorable  William  L.  May,  who  had  served  a 
term  in  Congress  acceptably,  would  again  become  the 
nominee  of  the  Democratic  party  without  opposition. 
If  the  old-time  practice  prevailed,  he  would  quietly 
assume  the  nomination  "at  the  request  of  many 
friends."  Still,  consistency  required  that  the  nomina 
tion  should  be  made  in  due  form  by  a  convention.  The 
Springfield  Republican  clamored  for  a  convention; 
and  the  Jacksonville  News  echoed  the  cry.1  Other 
Democratic  papers  took  up  the  cry,  until  by  general 
agreement  a  congressional  district  convention  was 
summoned  to  meet  at  Peoria.  The  Jacksonville  News 
was  then  ready  with  a  list  of  eligible  candidates  among 
whom  Douglas  was  mentioned.  At  the  same  time  the 
enterprising  Brooks  announced  "authoritatively" 
that  if  Mr.  May  concluded  to  become  a  candidate,  he 
would  submit  his  claims  to  the  consideration  of  the 
convention.2  This  was  the  first  intimation  that  the 
gentleman's  claims  were  likely  to  be  contested  in  the 
convention.  Meantime,  good  friends  in  Sangamon 
County  saw  to  it  that  the  county  delegation  was  made 
up  of  men  who  were  favorably  disposed  toward 
Douglas,  and  bound  them  by  instructions  to  act  as  a 
unit  in  the  convention.3 

The  history  of  the  district  convention  has  never 
been  written:  it  needs  no  historian.  Under  the  cir 
cumstances  the  outcome  was  a  foregone  conclusion. 
Not  all  the  counties  were  represented;  some  were 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  October  13,  1837. 

2  Jacksonville  News,  quoted  by  Illinois  State  Eegister,  Oct.  13,  1837. 
8  Illinois  State  Eegister,  October  27,  1837. 


THE    EISE    OF    THE    POLITICIAN  41 

poorly  represented ;  most  of  the  delegates  came  with 
out  any  clearly  defined  aims ;  all  were  unfamiliar  with 
the  procedure  of  conventions.  The  Sangamon  County 
delegation  alone,  with  the  possible  exception  of  that 
from  Morgan  County,  knew  exactly  what  it  wanted. 
When  a  ballot  was  taken,  Douglas  received  a  majority 
of  votes  cast,  and  was  declared  to  be  the  regular  nom 
inee  of  the  party  for  Congress.1 

There  was  much  shaking  of  heads  over  this  machine- 
made  nomination.  An  experienced  public  servant  had 
been  set  aside  to  gratify  the  ambition  of  a  mere  strip 
ling.  Even  Democrats  commented  freely  upon  the  un- 
trustworthiness  of  a  device  which  left  nominations  to 
the  caprice  of  forty  delegates  representing  only  four 
teen  counties  out  of  thirty-five.2  The  Whigs  made 
merry  over  the  folly  of  their  opponents.  "No  nomina 
tion  could  suit  us  better/'  declared  the  Sangamo 
Journal? 

The  Democratic  State  convention  met  at  the  ap 
pointed  time,  and  again  new  methods  prevailed.  In 
spite  of  strong  opposition,  a  slate  was  made  up  and  pro 
claimed  as  the  regular  ticket  of  the  party.  Unhappily, 
the  nominee  for  governor  fell  under  suspicion  as  an 
alleged  defaulter  to  the  government,  so  that  his  de 
position  became  imperative.4  The  Democrats  were  in 
a  sorry  plight.  Defeat  stared  them  in  the  face.  There 
was  but  one  way  to  save  the  situation,  and  that  was 
to  call  a  second  convention.  This  was  done.  On  June 
5th,  a  new  ticket  was  put  in  the  field,  without  further 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  December  9,  1837;  Sangamo  Journal,  Novem 
ber  25,  1837. 

2  Sangamo  Journal,  November  25,  1837;  but  see  also  Peoria  Register, 
November  25,  1837.     3  Ibid.     *  See  Illinois  State  Register,  May  11,  1838. 


42  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

mention  of  the  discredited  nominee  of  the  earlier  con 
vention.1  It  so  happened  that  Carlin,  the  nominee  for 
Governor,  and  McRoberts,  candidate  for  Congress 
from  the  first  district,  were  receivers  in  land  offices. 
This  "Land  Office  Ticket "  became  a  fair  mark  for 
wags  in  the  Whig  party.2 

In  after  years,  Douglas  made  his  friends  believe 
that  he  accepted  the  nomination  with  no  expectation 
of  success:  his  only  purpose  was  to  "consolidate  the 
party/'3  If  this  be  true,  his  buoyant  optimism 
throughout  the  canvass  is  admirable.  He  was  pitted 
against  a  formidable  opponent  in  the  person  of  Major 
John  T.  Stuart,  who  had  been  the  candidate  of  the 
Whigs  two  years  before.  Stuart  enjoyed  great  popu 
larity.  He  was  "an  old  resident "  of  Springfield, — as 
Western  people  then  reckoned  time.  He  had  earned  his 
title  in  the  Black  Hawk  War,  since  which  he  had  prac 
ticed  law.  For  the  arduous  campaign,  which  would 
range  over  thirty-four  counties, — from  Calhoun,  Mor 
gan  and  Sangamon  on  the  south  to  Cook  County  on  the 
north, — Stuart  was  physically  well-equipped.4 

Douglas  was  eager  to  match  himself  against  Stuart. 
They  started  off  together,  in  friendly  rivalry.  As  they 
rode  from  town  to  town  over  much  the  same  route,  they 
often  met  in  joint  debate;  and  at  night,  striking  a 
truce,  they  would  on  occasion,  when  inns  were  few  and 
far  between,  occupy  the  same  quarters.  Accommoda 
tions  were  primitive  in  the  wilderness  of  the  northern 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  June  8,  1838. 

2  Sangamo  Journal,  July  21,  1838. 

'Wheeler,  Biographical  History  of  Congress  I,  pp.  72-73;  Sheahan, 
Douglas,  p.  36. 

*  Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  36-37  •  Transactions  of  the  Illinois  State  His 
torical  Society,  1902,  pp.  109  ff;  Peoria  Register,  May  19,  1838. 


THE    RISE    OF    THE    POLITICIAN  43 

counties.  An  old  resident  relates  how  he  was  awakened 
one  night  by  the  landlord  of  the  tavern,  who  insisted 
that  he  and  his  companion  should  share  their  beds  with 
two  belated  travelers.  The  late  arrivals  turned  out  to 
be  Douglas  and  Stuart.  Douglas  asked  the  occupants 
of  the  beds  what  their  politics  were,  and  on  learning 
that  one  was  a  Whig  and  the  other  a  Democrat,  he  said 
to  Stuart,  "Stuart,  you  sleep  with  the  Whig,  and  I'll 
sleep  with  the  Democrat."1 

Douglas  never  seemed  conscious  of  the  amusing  dis 
crepancy  between  himself  and  his  rival  in  point  of 
physique.  Stuart  was  fully  six  feet  tall  and  heavily 
built,  so  that  he  towered  like  a  giant  above  his  boyish 
competitor.  Yet  strange  to  relate,  the  exposure  to  all 
kinds  of  weather,  the  long  rides,  and  the  incessant 
speaking  in  the  open  air  through  five  weary  months, 
told  on  the  robust  Stuart  quite  as  much  as  on  Douglas. 
In  the  midst  of  the  canvass  Douglas  found  his  way  to 
Chicago.  He  must  have  been  a  forlorn  object.  His 
horse,  his  clothes,  his  boots,  and  his  hat  were  worn  out. 
His  harness  was  held  together  only  by  ropes  and 
strings.  Yet  he  was  still  plucky.  And  so  his  friends 
fitted  him  out  again  and  sent  him  on  his  way  rejoicing.2 

The  rivals  began  the  canvass  good-naturedly,  but 
both  gave  evidence  of  increasing  irritability  as  the 
summer  wore  on.  Shortly  before  the  election,  they  met 
in  joint  debate  at  Springfield,  in  front  of  the  Market 
House.  In  the  course  of  his  speech,  Douglas  used 
language  that  offended  his  big  opponent.  Stuart  then 
promptly  tucked  Douglas's  head  under  his  arm,  and 
carried  him  Jiors  de  combat  around  the  square.  In  his 

1  Palmer,  Personal  Eecollections,  p.  24. 

3  Forney,  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  II,  p.  180. 


44  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

efforts  to  free  himself,  Douglas  seized  Stuart's  thumb 
in  his  mouth  and  bit  it  vigorously,  so  that  Stuart 
carried  a  scar,  as  a  memento  of  the  occasion,  for  many 
a  year.1 

As  the  canvass  advanced,  the  assurance  of  the  Whigs 
gave  way  to  ill-disguised  alarm.  Disquieting  rumors 
of  Douglas's  popularity  among  some  two  thousand 
Irishmen,  who  were  employed  on  the  canal  excavation, 
reached  the  Whig  headquarters.2  The  young  man  was 
assiduously  cultivating  voters  in  the  most  inaccessible 
quarters.  He  was  a  far  more  resourceful  campaigner 
than  his  older  rival. 

The  election  in  August  was  followed  by  weeks  of 
suspense.  Both  parties  claimed  the  district  vocifer 
ously.  The  official  count  finally  gave  the  election  to 
Stuart  by  a  majority  of  thirty-five,  in  a  total  vote  of 
over  thirty-six  thousand.3  Possibly  Douglas  might 
have  successfully  contested  the  election.4  There  were 
certain  discrepancies  in  the  counting  of  the  votes ;  but 
he  declined  to  vex  Congress  with  the  question,  so  he 
said,  because  similar  cases  were  pending  and  he  could 
not  hope  to  secure  a  decision  before  Congress  ad 
journed.  It  is  doubtful  whether  this  merciful  con 
sideration  for  Congress  was  uppermost  in  his  mind  in 
the  year  1838.  The  fact  is,  that  Douglas  wrote  to 
Senator  Thomas  H.  Benton  to  ascertain  the  proper 
procedure  in  such  cases  ;5  and  abandoned  the  notion  of 

1  Transactions  of  the  Illinois  Historical  Society,  1902,  p.  110. 

2Sangamo  Journal,  August  25,  1838;  Peoria  Eegister,  August  11, 
1838. 

3  Election  returns  in  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 

*See  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  37;  also  Illinois  State  Eegister,  October 
12,  1838. 

8  MS.  Letter,  Benton  to  Douglas,  October  27,  1838. 


THE    RISE    OF   THE    POLITICIAN  45 

carrying  his  case  before  Congress,  when  he  learned  how 
costly  such  a  contest  would  be.1  He  had  resigned  his 
position  as  Eegister  of  the  Land  Office  to  enter  the 
campaign,  and  he  had  now  no  other  resources  than 
his  profession. 

It  was  comforting  to  the  wounded  pride  of  the  young- 
man  to  have  the  plaudits  of  his  own  party,  at  least. 
He  had  made  a  gallant  fight;  and  when  Democrats 
from  all  over  the  State  met  at  a  dinner  in  honor  of 
Governor-elect  Carlin,  at  Quincy,  they  paid  him  this 
generous  tribute:  "Although  so  far  defeated  in  the 
election  that  the  certificate  will  be  given  to  another,  yet 
he  has  the  proud  gratification  of  knowing  that  the 
people  are  with  him.  His  untiring  zeal,  his  firm  in 
tegrity,  and  high  order  of  talents,  have  endeared  him 
to  the  Democracy  of  the  State  and  they  will  remember 
him  two  years  hence."2  Meantime  there  was  nothing 
left  for  him  to  do  but  to  solicit  a  law  practice.  He 
entered  into  partnership  with  a  Springfield  attorney 
by  the  name  of  Urquhart. 

By  the  following  spring,  Douglas  was  again  dabbling 
in  local  politics,  and  by  late  fall  he  was  fully  immersed 
in  the  deeper  waters  of  national  politics.  Prepara 
tions  for  the  presidential  campaign  drew  him  out  of 
his  law  office, — where  indeed  there  was  nothing  to  de 
tain  him, — and  he  was  once  again  active  in  party  con 
claves.  He  presided  over  a  Democratic  county  conven 
tion,  and  lent  a  hand  in  the  drafting  of  a  platform.3  In 
November  he  was  summoned  to  answer  Cyrus  Walker, 

1For  correspondence  between  Douglas  and  Stuart,  see  Illinois  State 
Eegister,  April  5,  1839. 

8  Illinois  State  Eegister,  October  26,  1838. 
,  April  5,  1839. 


46  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

a  Whig  who  was  making  havoc  of  the  Democratic  pro 
gramme  at  a  mass-meeting  in  the  Court  House.  In  the 
absence  of  any  reliable  records,  nothing  more  can  be 
said  of  Douglas's  rejoinder  than  that  it  moved  the 
Whigs  in  turn  to  summon  reinforcements,  in  the  person 
of  the  awkward  but  clever  Lincoln.  The  debate  was 
prolonged  far  into  the  night;  and  on  which  side 
victory  finally  folded  her  wings,  no  man  can  tell.1 
Douglas  made  the  stronger  impression,  though  Whigs 
professed  entire  satisfaction  with  the  performance  of 
their  protagonist.  There  were  some  in  the  audience 
who  took  exception  to  Lincoln's  stale  anecdotes,  and 
who  thought  his  manner  clownish.2 
*  Not  long  after  this  encounter,  Douglas  came  in  for 
his  share  of  public  ridicule.  Considering  himself  in 
sulted  by  a  squib  in  the  Sangamo  Journal,  Douglas 
undertook  to  cane  the  editor.  But  as  Francis  was  large 
and  rotund,  and  Douglas  was  not,  the  affair  termin 
ated  unsatisfactorily  for  the  latter.  Lincoln  described 
the  incident  with  great  relish,  in  a  letter  to  Stuart: 
"Francis  caught  him  by  the  hair  and  jammed  him  back 
against  a  market-cart,  where  the  matter  ended  by 
Francis  being  pulled  away  from  him.  The  whole  affair 
was  so  ludicrous  that  Francis  and  everybody  else, 
Douglas  excepted,  have  been  laughing  about  it  ever 
since."3  The  Illinois  State  Register  tried  to  save 
Douglas's  dignity  by  the  following  account  of  the  ren 
contre:  "Mr.  Francis  had  applied  scurrilous  language 
to  Mr.  Douglas,  which  could  be  noticed  in  no  other  way. 
Mr.  Douglas,  therefore,  gave  him  a  sound  caning,  which 
Mr.  Francis  took  with  Abolition  patience,  and  is  now 

1  Illinois   State  Register,  November  23,   1839.  *  Ibid. 

"Nicolay  and  Hay,  Lincoln,  I,  p.  181. 


THE   RISE    OF    THE    POLITICIAN  47 

praising  God  that  he  was  neither  killed  nor  scathed. " 
The  executive  talents  of  Douglas  were  much  in  de 
mand.  First  he  was  made  a  member  of  the  Sangamon 
County  delegation  to  the  State  convention;1  then  chair 
man  of  the  State  Central  Committee;  and  finally,  vir 
tual  manager  of  the  Democratic  campaign  in  Illinois.2 
He  was  urged  to  stand  for  election  to  the  legislature; 
but  he  steadily  refused  this  nomination.  "Considera 
tions  of  a  private  nature/'  he  wrote,  "constrain  me  to 
decline  the  nomination,  and  leave  the  field  to  those 
whose  avocations  and  private  affairs  will  enable  them 
to  devote  the  requisite  portion  of  their  time  to  the  can 
vass/'3  Inasmuch  as  Sangamon  County  usually  sent  a 
Whig  delegation  to  the  legislature,  this  declination 
could  hardly  have  cost  him  many  hours  of  painful  de 
liberation.4  At  all  events  his  avocations  did  not  pre 
vent  him  from  making  every  effort  to  carry  the  State 
for  the  Democratic  party. 

An  unfortunate  legal  complication  had  cost  the 
Democrats  no  end  of  worry.  Hitherto  the  party  had 
counted  safely  on  the  vote  of  the  aliens  in  the  State; 
that  is,  actual  inhabitants  whether  naturalized  or 
not.5  The  right  of  unnaturalized  aliens  to  vote  had 
never  been  called  in  question.  But  during  the  cam 
paign,  two  Whigs  of  Galena  instituted  a  collusive  suit 
to  test  the  rights  of  aliens,  hoping,  of  course,  to  em 
barrass  their  opponents.6  The  Circuit  Court  had 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  November  23,  1839. 

2  Ibid.,  February  21,  1840. 
*Ibid.,  April  24,  1840. 

4  See  Illinois  State  Register,  August  7,  1840. 

5  The  Constitution  of  1819  bestowed  the  suffrage  upon  every  white 
male  "inhabitant"  twenty-one  years  of  age. 

6  Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  44-45. 


48  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

already  decided  the  case  adversely,  when  Douglas  as 
sumed  direction  of  the  campaign.  If  the  decision  were 
allowed  to  stand,  the  Democratic  ticket  would  probably 
lose  some  nine  thousand  votes  and  consequently  the 
election.  The  case  was  at  once  appealed.1  Douglas 
and  his  old  friend  and  benefactor,  Murray  McConnell, 
were  retained  as  counsel  for  the  appellant.  The  op 
posing  counsel  were  Whigs.  The  case  was  argued  in 
the  winter  term  of  the  Supreme  Court,  but  was  ad 
journed  until  the  following  June,  a  scant  six  months 
before  the  elections. 

It  was  regrettable  that  a  case,  which  from  its  very 
nature  was  complicated  by  political  considerations, 
should  have  arisen  in  the  midst  of  a  campaign  of  such 
unprecedented  excitement  as  that  of  1840.  It  was  taken 
for  granted,  on  all  sides,  that  the  judges  would  follow 
their  political  predilections — and  what  had  Demo 
crats  to  expect  from  a  bench  of  Whigs?  The  counsel 
for  the  appellant  strained  every  nerve  to  secure  an 
other  postponement.  Fortune  favored  the  Democrats. 
When  the  court  met  in  June,  Douglas,  prompted  by 
Judge  Smith,  the  only  Democrat  on  the  bench,  called 
attention  to  clerical  errors  in  the  record,  and  on  this 
technicality  moved  that  the  case  be  dismissed.  Pro 
tracted  arguments  pro  and  con  ensued,  so  that  the 
whole  case  finally  was  adjourned  until  the  next  term  of 
court  in  November,  after  the  election.2  Once  more,  at 
all  events,  the  Democrats  could  count  on  the  alien  vote. 
Did  ever  lawyer  serve  politician  so  well  1 

1  The  title  of  the  case  was  Thomas  Spraggins,  appellant  vs.  Horace  II. 
Houghton,  appellee. 

3Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  45-46;  Wheeler,  Biographical  History  of  Con 
gress,  p.  76. 


THE   KISE    OF    THE    POLITICIAN  49 

As  Chairman  of  the  State  Central  Committee,  Doug 
las  had  no  perfunctory  position.  The  Whigs  were  dis 
playing  unusual  aggressiveness.  Their  leaders  were 
adroit  politicians  and  had  taken  a  leaf  from  Democratic 
experience  in  the  matter  of  party  organization.  The 
processions,  the  torch-light  parades,  the  barbecues  and 
other  noisy  demonstrations  of  the  Whigs,  were  very 
disconcerting.  Such  performances  could  not  be  lightly 
dismissed  as  "Whig  Humbuggery, ' '  for  they  were 
alarmingly  effective  in  winning  votes.  In  self-defense, 
the  Democratic  managers  were  obliged  to  set  on  foot 
counter-demonstrations.  On  the  whole,  the  Democrats 
were  less  successful  in  manufacturing  enthusiasm. 
When  one  convention  of  young  Democrats  failed,  for 
want  of  support,  Douglas  saved  the  situation  only  by 
explaining  that  hard-working  Democrats  could  not 
leave  their  employment  to  go  gadding.  They  preferred 
to  leave  noise  and  sham  to  their  opponents,  knowing 
that  in  the  end  ' l  the  quiet  but  certain  influence  of  truth 
and  correct  principles"  would  prevail.1  And  when 
the  Whigs  unwittingly  held  a  great  demonstration 
for  "Tippecanoe  and  Tyler  too,"  on  the  birthday  of 
King  George  III,  Douglas  saw  to  it  that  an  address 
was  issued  to  voters,  warning  them  against  the  chicane 
of  unpatriotic  demagogues.  As  a  counter-blast,  "All 
Good  Democrats"  were  summoned  to  hold  mass-meet 
ings  in  the  several  counties  on  the  Fourth  of  July. 
"We  select  the  Fourth  of  July,"  read  this  pronuncia- 
mento,  "not  to  desecrate  it  with  unhallowed  shouts 
....  but  in  cool  and  calm  devotion  to  our  country,  to 
renew  upon  the  altars  of  its  liberties,  a  sacred  oath 
of  fidelity  to  its  principles."2 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  May  15,  1840.  *IMd.,  June  12,  1840. 

4 


50  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

Both  parties  now  drew  upon  their  reserves.  Doug 
las  went  to  the  front  whenever  and  wherever  there 
was  hard  fighting  to  be  done.1  He  seemed  indefati 
gable.  Once  again  he  met  Major  Stuart  on  the  plat 
form.2  He  was  pitted  against  experienced  campaigners 
like  ex-Governor  Duncan  and  General  Ewing  of  Indi 
ana.  Douglas  made  a  fearless  defence  of  Democratic 
principles  in  a  joint  debate  with  both  these  Whig 
champions  at  Springfield.3  The  discussion  continued 
far  into  the  night.  In  his  anxiety  to  let  no  point  es 
cape,  Douglas  had  his  supper  brought  to  him;  and  it 
is  the  testimony  of  an  old  Whig  who  heard  the  debate, 
that  Duncan  was  "the  worst  used-up  man"  he  ever 
saw.4  Whether  Douglas  took  the  field  as  on  this  oc 
casion,  or  directed  the  campaign  from  headquarters, 
he  was  cool,  collected,  and  resourceful.  If  the  sobri 
quet  of  "the  Little  Giant "  had  not  already  been 
fastened  upon  him,  it  was  surely  earned  in  this  memor 
able  campaign  of  1840.  The  victory  of  Van  Buren  over 
Harrison  in  Illinois  was  little  less  than  a  personal 
triumph  for  Douglas,  for  Democratic  reverses  else 
where  emphasized  the  already  conspicuous  fact  that 
Illinois  had  been  saved  only  by  superior  organization 
and  leadership. 

Illinois  State  Eegister,  July  10,  1840;  Forney,  Anecdotes  of  Pub 
lic  Men,  II,  p.  180. 

2  Ibid.,  September  4,  1840.  3  Ibid.,  October  2,  1840. 

.* Letter  of  J.  H.  Roberts,  Esq.,  of  Chicago,  to  the  writer;  see  also 
Illinois  State  Eegister,  October  2,  1840. 


CHAPTER  III 

LAW  AND  POLITICS 

The  years  were  passing  rapidly  during  which 
Douglas  should  have  laid  broad  and  deep  the  founda 
tions  of  his  professional  career,  if  indeed  law  was  to 
be  more  than  a  convenient  avocation.  These  were 
formative  years  in  the  young  man's  life;  but  as  yet  he 
had  developed  neither  the  inclination  nor  the  capacity 
to  apply  himself  to  the  study  of  the  more  intricate  and 
abstruse  phases  of  jurisprudence.  To  be  sure,  he  had 
picked  up  much  practical  information  in  the  courts, 
but  it  was  not  of  the  sort  which  makes  great  jurists. 
Besides,  his  law  practice  had  been,  and  was  always 
destined  to  be,  the  handmaid  of  his  political  ambition. 
In  such  a  school,  a  naturally  ardent,  impulsive  tem 
perament  does  not  acquire  judicial  poise  and  gravity. 
After  all,  he  was  only  a  soldier  of  political  fortune, 
awaiting  his  turn  for  promotion.  A  reversal  in  the 
fortunes  of  his  party  might  leave  him  without  hope 
of  preferment,  and  bind  him  to  a  profession  which  is  a 
jealous  mistress,  and  to  which  he  had  been  none  too 
constant.  Happily,  his  party  was  now  in  power,  and 
he  was  entitled  to  first  consideration  in  the  distribu 
tion  of  the  spoils.  Under  somewhat  exceptional  cir 
cumstances  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  fell  vacant 
in  the  autumn  of  1840,  and  the  chairman  of  the  Demo 
cratic  Central  Committee  entered  into  his  reward. 

When  Governor  Carlin  took  office  in  1838,  he  sent  to 
the  Senate  the  nomination  of  John  A.  McClernand  as 

51 


52  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

Secretary  of  State,  assuming  that  the  office  had  been 
vacated  and  that  a  new  Governor  might  choose  his 
advisers.1  Precedent,  it  is  true,  militated  against  this 
theory,  for  Secretary  Field  had  held  office  under  three 
successive  governors;  but  now  that  parties  had  be 
come  more  sharply  denned,  it  was  deemed  important 
that  the  Secretary  of  State  should  be  of  the  same 
political  persuasion  as  the  Governor, — and  Field  was 
a  Whig.  The  Senate  refused  to  indorse  this  new 
theory.  Whereupon  the  Governor  waited  until  the 
legislature  adjourned,  and  renewed  his  appointment  of 
McClernand,  who  promptly  brought  action  against  the 
tenacious  Field  to  obtain  possession  of  the  office.  The 
case  was  argued  in  the  Circuit  Court  before  Judge 
Breese,  who  gave  a  decision  in  favor  of  McClernand. 
The  case  was  then  appealed.  Among  the  legal  talent 
arrayed  on  the  side  of  the  claimant,  when  the  case  ap 
peared  on  the  docket  of  the  Supreme  Court,  was 
Douglas — as  a  matter  of  course.  Everyone  knew  that 
this  was  not  so  much  a  case  at  law  as  an  issue  in  poli 
tics.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  reversing  the 
judgment  of  the  lower  court  was  received,  therefore,  as 
a  partisan  move  to  protect  a  Whig  office-holder.2 

For  a  time  the  Democrats,  in  control  elsewhere, 
found  themselves  obliged  to  tolerate  a  dissident  in 
their  political  family ;  but  the  Democratic  majority  in 
the  new  legislature  came  promptly  to  the  aid  of  the 
Governor's  household.  Measures  were  set  on  foot  to 
terminate  Secretary  Field's  tenure  of  office  by  legis 
lative  enactment.  Just  at  this  juncture  that  gentleman 
prudently  resigned ;  and  Stephen  A.  Douglas  was  ap- 

*Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  213-214. 

8  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  454-455. 


LAW   AND    POLITICS  53 

pointed  to  the  office  which  he  had  done  his  best  to 
vacate.1 

This  appointment  was  a  boon  to  the  impecunious 
young  attorney.  He  could  now  count  on  a  salary 
which  would  free  him  from  any  concern  about  his 
financial  liabilities, — if  indeed  they  ever  gave  him  more 
than  momentary  concern.  Besides,  as  custodian  of 
the  State  Library,  he  had  access  to  the  best  collection 
of  law  books  in  the  State.  The  duties  of  his  office  were 
not  so  exacting  but  that  he  could  still  carry  on  his  law 
studies,  and  manage  such  incidental  business  as  came 
his  way.  These  were  the  obvious  and  tangible  advan 
tages  which  Douglas  emphasized  in  the  mellow  light  of 
recollection.2  Yet  there  were  other,  less  obvious,  ad 
vantages  which  he  omitted  to  mention. 

The  current  newspapers  of  this  date  make  frequent 
mention  of  an  institution  popularly  dubbed  ' i  the  Third 
House,"  or  "Lord  Coke's  Assembly. "3  The  archives 
of  state  do  not  explain  this  unique  institution.  Its 
location  was  in  the  lobby  of  the  State  House.  Like 
many  another  extra-legal  body  it  kept  no  records  of 
its  proceedings ;  yet  it  wielded  a  potent  influence.  It 
was  attended  regularly  by  those  officials  who  made  the 
lobby  a  rendezvous;  irregularly,  by  politicians  who 
came  to  the  Capitol  on  business ;  and  on  pressing  oc 
casions,  by  members  of  the  legislature  who  wished  to 
catch  the  undertone  of  party  opinion.  The  debates 
in  this  Third  House  often  surpassed  in  interest  the 
formal  proceedings  behind  closed  doors  across  the 

*Why  McClernand  was  passed  over  is  not  clear.  Douglas  entered 
upon  the  duties  of  his  office  November  30,  1840. 

2  Wheeler,  Biographical  History  of  Congress,  p.  74. 
•Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  43. 


54  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

corridor.  Members  of  this  house  were  not  held  to  rigid 
account  for  what  they  said.  Many  a  political  coup  was 
plotted  in  the  lobby.  The  grist  which  came  out  of  the 
legislative  mill  was  often  ground  by  irresponsible 
politicians  out  of  hearing  of  the  Speaker  of  the  House. 
The  chance  comer  was  quite  as  likely  to  find  the  Secre 
tary  of  State  in  the  lobby  as  in  his  office  among  his 
books. 

The  lobby  was  a  busy  place  in  this  winter  session  of 
1840-41.  It  was  well  known  that  Democratic  leaders 
had  planned  an  aggressive  reorganization  of  the  Su 
preme  Court,  in  anticipation  of  an  adverse  decision 
in  the  famous  Galena  alien  case.  The  Democratic 
programme  was  embodied  in  a  bill  which  proposed  to 
abolish  the  existing  Circuit  Courts,  and  to  enlarge  the 
Supreme  Court  by  the  addition  of  five  judges.  Circuit 
Courts  were  to  be  held  by  the  nine  judges  of  the  Su 
preme  Court.1  Subsequent  explanations  did  not,  and 
could  not,  disguise  the  real  purpose  of  this  chaste 
reform.2 

While  this  revolutionary  measure  was  under  fire 
in  the  legislature  and  in  the  Third  House,  the  Supreme 
Court  rendered  its  opinion  in  the  alien  case.  To  the 
amazement  of  the  reformers,  the  decision  did  not 
touch  the  broad,  constitutional  question  of  the  right 
of  aliens  to  vote,  but  simply  the  concrete,  particular 
question  arising  under  the  Election  Law  of  1829.3 
Judge  Smith  alone  dissented  and  argued  the  larger 
issue.  The  admirable  self-restraint  of  the  Court,  so 
far  from  stopping  the  mouths  of  detractors,  only  ex 
cited  more  unfavorable  comment.  The  suspicion 

1  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  217.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  212-222. 

'Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  456. 


LAW   AND    POLITICS  55 

of  partisanship,  sedulously  fed  by  angry  Democrats, 
could  not  be  easily  eradicated.  The  Court  was  now 
condemned  for  its  contemptible  evasion  of  the  real 
question  at  issue. 

Douglas  made  an  impassioned  speech  to  the  lobby, 
charging  the  Court  with  having  deliberately  suppressed 
its  decision  on  the  paramount  issue,  in  order  to  disarm 
criticism  and  to  avert  the  impending  reorganization 
of  the  bench.1  He  called  loudly  for  the  passage 
of  the  bill  before  the  legislature ;  and  the  lobby  echoed 
his  sentiments.  McClernand  in  the  House  corrobo 
rated  this  charge  by  stating,  "under  authorization," 
that  the  judges  had  withdrawn  the  opinion  which  they 
had  prepared  in  June.2  Thereupon  four  of  the  five 
judges  made  an  unqualified  denial  of  the  charge.3 
McClernand  fell  back  helplessly  upon  the  word  of 
Douglas.  Pushed  into  a  corner,  Douglas  then  stated 
publicly,  that  he  had  made  his  charges  against  the 
Court  on  the  explicit  information  given  to  him  pri 
vately  by  Judge  Smith.  Six  others  testified  that  they 
had  been  similarly  informed,  or  misinformed,  by  the 
same  high  authority.4  At  all  events,  the  mischief  had 
been  done.  Under  the  party  whip  the  bill  to  reorganize 
the  Supreme  Court  was  driven  through  both  houses  of 
the  legislature,  and  unofficially  ratified  by  Lord  Coke's 
Assembly  in  the  lobby. 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  January  29,  1841 ;  Ford,  History  of  Illinois, 
p.  220. 

2  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  457-458. 
8  Ibid.,  pp.  457-458. 

*  Illinois  State  "Register,  February  5,  1841.  Judge  Smith  is  put  in 
an  unenviable  light  by  contemporary  historians.  There  seems  to  be  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  he  misinformed  Douglas  and  others.  See  Davidson 
and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  458-459. 


56  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

Already  it  was  noised  abroad  that  Douglas  was 
"  slated "  for  one  of  the  newly  created  judgeships.  The 
Whig  press  ridiculed  the  suggestion  but  still  frankly 
admitted,  that  if  party  services  were  to  qualify  for  such 
an  appointment,  the  l  '  Generalessimo  of  the  Loco-focos 
of  Illinois"  was  entitled  to  consideration.  When 
rumor  passed  into  fact,  and  Douglas  was  nominated 
by  the  Governor,  even  Democrats  demurred.  It  re 
quired  no  little  generosity  on  the  part  of  older  men 
who  had  befriended  the  young  man,  to  permit  him  to 
pass  over  their  heads  in  this  fashion.1  Besides,  what 
legal  qualifications  could  this  young  man  of  twenty- 
seven  possess  for  so  important  a  post? 

The  new  judges  entered  upon  their  duties  under  a 
cloud.  Almost  their  first  act  was  to  vacate  the  clerkship 
of  the  court,  for  the  benefit  of  that  arch-politician, 
Ebenezer  Peck;  and  that,  too, — so  men  said, — without 
consulting  their  Whig  associates  on  the  bench.  It  was 
commonly  reported  that  Peck  had  changed  his  vote  in 
the  House  just  when  one  more  vote  was  needed  to  pass 
the  Judiciary  Bill.2  Very  likely  this  rumor  was  circu 
lated  by  some  malicious  newsmonger,  but  the  appoint 
ment  of  Peck  certainly  did  not  inspire  confidence  in 
the  newly  organized  court. 

Was  it  to  make  his  ambition  seem  less  odious,  that 
Douglas  sought  to  give  the  impression  that  he  accepted 
the  appointment  with  reluctance  and  at  a  "pecuniary 
sacrifice";  or  was  he,  as  Whigs  maintained,  forced 
out  of  the  Secretaryship  of  State  to  make  way  for  one 
of  the  Governor's  favorites?3  He  could  not  have  been 

1  Chicago  American,  February  18,  1841. 

2  Sangamo  Journal,  March  19,  1841. 

8  Chicago  American,  February  18,  1841. 


LAW   AND    POLITICS  57 

perfectly  sincere,  at  all  events,  when  he  afterward 
declared  that  he  supposed  he  was  taking  leave  of  poli 
tical  life  forever.1-  No  one  knew  better  than  he,  that 
a  popular  judge  is  a  potential  candidate  for  almost 
any  office  in  the  gift  of  the  peoples 

Before  starting  out  on  his  circuit  Douglas  gave  con 
spicuous  proof  of  his  influence  in  the  lobby,  and  inci 
dentally,  as  it  happened,  cast  bread  upon  the  waters. 
The  Mormons  who  had  recently  settled  in  Nauvoo,  in 
Hancock  County,  had  petitioned  the  legislature  for  acts 
incorporating  the  new  city  and  certain  of  its  peculiar 
institutions.  Their  sufferings  in  Missouri  had  touched 
the  people  of  Illinois,  who  welcomed  them  as  a  perse 
cuted  sect.  For  quite  different  reasons,  Mormon  agents 
were  cordially  received  at  the  Capitol.  Here  their 
religious  tenets  were  less  carefully  scrutinized  than 
their  political  affiliations.  The  Mormons  found  little 
trouble  in  securing  lobbyists  from  both  parties.  Bills 
were  drawn  to  meet  their  wishes  and  presented  to  the 
legislature,  where  parties  vied  with  each  other  in  be 
friending  the  unfortunate  refugees  from  Missouri.2 

Chance — or  was  it  design? — assigned  Judge  Douglas 
to  the  Quincy  circuit,  within  which  lay  Hancock  County 
and  the  city  of  Nauvoo.  The  appointment  was  highly 
satisfactory  to  the  Mormons,  for  while  they  enjoyed 
a  large  measure  of  local  autonomy  by  virtue  of  their 
new  charter,  they  deemed  it  advantageous  to  have  the 
court  of  the  vicinage  presided  over  by  one  who  had 
proved  himself  a  friend.  Douglas  at  once  confirmed 
this  good  impression.  He  appointed  the  commander 

1  Wheeler,  Biographical  History  of  Congress,  p.  74. 

2  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  263-265 ;  Linn,  Story  of  the  Mormons, 
pp.  236-237. 


58  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

of  the  Nauvoo  Legion  a  master  in  chancery ;  and  when 
a  case  came  before  him  which  involved  interpretation 
of  the  act  incorporating  this  peculiar  body  of  militia, 
he  gave  a  constructive  interpretation  which  left  the 
Mormons  independent  of  State  officers  in  military 
affairs.1  Whatever  may  be  said  of  this  decision  in 
point  of  law,  it  was  at  least  good  politics;  and  the 
dividing  line  between  law  and  politics  was  none  too 
sharply  drawn  in  the  Fifth  Judicial  District. 

Politicians  were  now  figuring  on  the  Mormon  vote 
in  the  approaching  congressional  election.  The  Whigs 
had  rather  the  better  chance  of  winning  their  support, 
if  the  election  of  1840  afforded  any  basis  for  calcula 
tion,  for  the  Mormons  had  then  voted  en  bloc  for  Har 
rison  and  Tyler.2  Stuart  was  a  candidate  for  re-elec 
tion.  It  was  generally  believed  that  Ealston,  whom  the 
Democrats  pitted  against  him,  had  small  chance  of 
success.  Still,  Judge  Douglas  could  be  counted  on 
to  use  his  influence  to  procure  the  Mormon  vote. 

Undeterred  by  his  position  on  the  bench,  Douglas 
paid  a  friendly  visit  to  the  Mormon  city  in  the  course 
of  the  campaign ;  and  there  encountered  his  old  Whig 
opponent,  Cyrus  Walker,  Esq.,  who  was  also  on  a  mis 
sion.  Both  made  public  addresses  of  a  flattering  de 
scription.  The  Prophet,  Joseph  Smith,  was  greatly 
impressed  with  Judge  Douglas's  friendliness.  "Judge 
Douglas,"  he  wrote  to  the  Faithful,  "has  ever  proved 
himself  friendly  to  this  people;  and  interested  him 
self  to  obtain  for  us  our  several  charters,  holding  at 
the  same  time  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State."  But 
what  particularly  flattered  the  Mormon  leader,  was  the 

"Linn,  Story  of  the  Mormons,  pp.  237-238. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  244. 


LAW   AND    POLITICS  59 

edifying  spectacle  of  representatives  from  both  parties 
laying  aside  all  partisan  motives  to  mingle  with  the 
Saints,  as  "brothers,  citizens,  and  friends."1  This 
touching  account  would  do  for  Mormon  readers,  but 
Gentiles  remained  somewhat  skeptical. 

In  spite  of  this  coquetting  with  the  Saints,  the  Demo 
cratic  candidate  suffered  defeat.  It  was  observed  with 
alarm  that  the  Mormons  held  the  balance  of  power  in 
the  district,  and  might  even  become  a  makeweight  in 
the  State  elections,  should  they  continue  to  increase 
in  numbers.2  The  Democrats  braced  themselves  for  a 
new  trial  of  strength  in  the  gubernatorial  contest. 
The  call  for  a  State  convention  was  obeyed  with 
alacrity;3  and  the  outcome  justified  the  high  expecta 
tions  which  were  entertained  of  this  body.  The  con 
vention  nominated  for  governor,  Adam  W.  Snyder, 
whose  peculiar  availability  consisted  in  his  having 
fathered  the  Judiciary  Bill  and  the  several  acts  which 
had  been  passed  in  aid  of  the  Mormons.  The  prac 
tical  wisdom  of  this  nomination  was  proved  by  a  com 
munication  of  Joseph  Smith  to  the  official  newspaper 
of  Nauvoo.  The  pertinent  portion  of  this  remarkable 
manifesto  read  as  follows:  "The  partisans  in  this 
county  who  expected  to  divide  the  friends  of  humanity 
and  equal  rights  will  find  themselves  mistaken, — we 
care  not  a  fig  for  Whig  or  Democrat:  they  are  both 
alike  to  us ;  but  we  shall  go  for  our  friends,  our  TEIED 
FKIENDS,  and  the  cause  of  human  liberty  which  is  the 
cause  of  God.  .  .  .  DOUGLASS  is  a  Master  Spirit,  and  his 
friends  are  our  friends — we  are  willing  to  cast  our 

1  Times  and  Seasons,  II,  p.  414. 

a  Illinois  State  Eegister,  August  13,  1841. 

*  Ibid.,  September  24,  1841. 


60  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

banners  on  the  air,  and  fight  by  his  side  in  the  cause 
of  humanity,  and  equal  rights — the  cause  of  liberty 
and  the  law.  SNYDEE  and  MOOKE,  are  his  friends — they 
are  ours  .  .  .  .Snyder,  and  Moore,  are  Jcnoivn  to  be  our 
friends ;  their  friendship  is  vouched  for  by  those  whom 
we  have  tried.  We  will  never  be  justly  charged  with 
the  sin  of  ingratitude — they  have  served  us,  and  we 
will  serve  them."1 

This  was  a  discomfiting  revelation  to  the  Whigs,  who 
had  certainly  labored  as  industriously  as  the  Demo 
crats,  to  placate  the  Saints  of  Nauvoo.  From  this 
moment  the  Whigs  began  a  crusade  against  the  Mor 
mons,  who  were  already,  it  is  true,  exhibiting  the 
characteristics  which  had  made  them  odious  to  the 
people  of  Missouri.2  Eightly  or  wrongly,  public 
opinion  was  veering;  and  the  shrewd  Duncan,  who 
headed  the  Whig  ticket,  openly  charged  Douglas  with 
bargaining  for  the  Mormon  vote.3  The  Whigs  hoped 
that  their  opponents,  having  sowed  the  wind,  would 
reap  the  whirlwind. 

Only  three  months  before  the  August  elections  of 
1844,  the  Democrats  were  thrown  into  consternation 
by  the  death  of  Snyder,  their  standard-bearer.  Here 
was  an  emergency  to  which  the  convention  system  was 
not  equal,  in  the  days  of  poor  roads  and  slow  stage 
coaches.  What  happened  was  this,  to  borrow  the  ac 
count  of  the  chief  Democratic  organ,  "A  large  number 
of  Democratic  citizens  from  almost  all  parts  of  the 
State  of  Illinois  met  together  by  a  general  and  public 

1  Times  and  Seasons,  III,  p.  651. 

2  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  269. 

*  Illinois  State  Register,  June  17,  1842.  Douglas  replied  in  a  speech 
of  equal  tartness.  See  Register,  July  1,  1842. 


LAW   AND    POLITICS  61 

call" — and  nominated  Judge  Thomas  Ford  for  gover 
nor.1  It  adds  significance  to  this  record  to  note  that 
this  numerous  body  of  citizens  met  in  the  snug  office 
of  the  State  Register.  Democrats  in  distant  parts  of 
the  State  were  disposed  to  resent  this  action  on  the 
part  of  "the  Springfield  clique";  but  the  onset  of  the 
enemy  quelled  mutiny.  In  one  way  the  nomination 
of  Ford  was  opportune.  It  could  not  be  said  of  him 
that  he  had  showed  any  particular  solicitude  for  the 
welfare  of  the  followers  of  Joseph  Smith.2  The  ticket 
could  now  be  made  to  face  both  ways.  Ford  could 
assure  hesitating  Democrats  who  disliked  the  Mor 
mons,  that  he  had  not  hobnobbed  with  the  Mormon 
leaders,  while  Douglas  and  his  crew  could  still  demon 
strate  to  the  Prophet  that  the  cause  of  human  liberty, 
for  which  he  stood  so  conspicuously,  was  safe  in  Demo 
cratic  hands.  The  game  was  played  adroitly.  Ford 
carried  Hancock  County  by  a  handsome  majority  and 
was  elected  governor.3 

It  has  already  been  remarked  that  as  judge, 
Douglas  was  potentially  a  candidate  for  almost  any 
public  office.  He  still  kept  in  touch  with  Springfield 
politicians,  planning  with  them  the  moves  and  counter- 
moves  on  the  checker-board  of  Illinois  politics.  There 
was  more  than  a  grain  of  truth  in  the  reiterated 
charges  of  the  Whig  press,  that  the  Democratic  party 
was  dominated  by  an  arbitrary  clique.4  It  was  a  mat 
ter  of  common  observation,  that  before  Democratic 
candidates  put  to  sea  in  the  troubled  waters  of  State 

1  Illinois  State  Eegister,  June  10,  1842. 

2  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  277-278. 

3  Gregg,  History  of  Hancock  County,  p.  419. 

4  Illinois  State  Eegister,  November  4,  1842. 


62  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

politics,  they  took  their  dead-reckoning  from  the  office 
of  the  State  Register.  It  was  noised  abroad  in  the  late 
fall  that  Douglas  would  not  refuse  a  positive  call  from 
his  party  to  enter  national  politics;  and  before  the 
year  closed,  his  Springfield  intimates  were  actively 
promoting  his  candidacy  for  the  United  States  Senate, 
to  succeed  Senator  Young.  This  was  an  audacious 
move,  since  even  if  Young  were  passed  over,  there  were 
older  men  far  more  justly  entitled  to  consideration. 
Nevertheless,  Douglas  secured  in  some  way  the  support 
of  several  delegations  in  the  legislature,  so  that  on  the 
first  ballot  in  the  Democratic  caucus  he  stood  second, 
receiving  only  nine  votes  less  than  Young.  A  pro 
tracted  contest  followed.  Nineteen  ballots  were  taken. 
Douglas's  chief  competitor  proved  to  be,  not  Young, 
but  Breese,  who  finally  secured  the  nomination  of  the 
caucus  by  a  majority  of  five  votes.1  The  ambition  of 
Judge  Douglas  had  overshot  the  mark. 

In  view  of  the  young  man's  absorbing  interest  in 
politics,  his  slender  legal  equipment,  and  the  circum 
stances  under  which  he  received  his  appointment,  one 
wonders  whether  the  courts  he  held  could  have  been 
anything  but  travesties  on  justice.  But  the  universal 
testimony  of  those  whose  memories  go  back  so  far,  is 
that  justice  was  on  the  whole  faithfully  administered.2 
The  conditions  of  life  in  Illinois  were  still  compara 
tively  simple.  The  suits  instituted  at  law  were  not  such 
as  to  demand  profound  knowledge  of  jurisprudence. 
The  wide-spread  financial  distress  which  followed  the 
crisis  of  1837,  gave  rise  to  many  processes  to  collect 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  December  23,  1842. 

2Conkling,  Eeeollections  of  the  Bench  and  Bar,  Fergus  Historical 
Series,  No.  22. 


LAW   AND   POLITICS  63 

debts  and  to  set  aside  fraudulent  conveyances. 
"  Actions  of  slander  and  trespass  for  assault  and  bat 
tery,  engendered  by  the  state  of  feeling  incident  to 
pecuniary  embarrassment,  were  frequent.  "* 

The  courts  were  in  keeping  with  the  meagre  legal 
attainments  of  those  who  frequented  them.  Eude 
frame,  or  log  houses  served  the  purposes  of  bench  and 
bar.  The  judge  sat  usually  upon  a  platform  with  a 
plain  table,  or  pine  board,  for  a  desk.  A  larger  table 
below  accommodated  the  attorneys  who  followed  the 
judge  in  his  circuit  from  county  to  county.  "The  re 
lations  between  the  Bench  and  the  Bar  were  free  and 
easy,  and  flashes  of  wit  and  humor  and  personal 
repartee  were  constantly  passing  from  one  to  the 
other.  The  court  rooms  in  those  days  were  always 
crowded.  To  go  to  court  and  listen  to  the  witnesses 
and  lawyers  was  among  the  chief  amusements  of  the 
frontier  settlements."2  In  this  little  world,  popular 
reputations  were  made  and  unmade. 

Judge  Douglas  was  thoroughly  at  home  in  this 
primitive  environment.  His  freedom  from  affectation 
and  false  dignity  recommended  him  to  the  laity,  while 
his  fairness  and  good-nature  put  him  in  quick  sym 
pathy  with  his  legal  brethren  and  their  clients.  Long 
years  afterward,  men  recalled  the  picture  of  the  young 
judge  as  he  mingled  with  the  crowd  during  a  recess. 
"It  was  not  unusual  to  see  him  come  off  the  bench,  or 
leave  his  chair  at  the  bar,  and  take  a  seat  on  the  knee 
of  a  friend,  and  with  one  arm  thrown  familiarly  around 
a  friend's  neck,  have  a  friendly  talk,  or  a  legal  or 

1Conkling,  Recollections  of  the  Bench  and  Bar,  Fergus  Historical 
Series,  No.  22. 

2  Arnold,  Reminiscences  of  the  Illinois  Bar,  Fergus  Historical  Series, 
No.  22. 


64  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

political  discussion.'71  An  attorney  recently  from  the 
East  witnessed  this  familiarity  with  dismay.  "The 
judge  of  our  circuit/'  he  wrote,  "is  S.  A.  Douglas,  a 
youth  of  28  ....  He  is  a  Vermonter,  a  man  of  con 
siderable  talent,  and,  in  the  way  of  despatching  busi 
ness,  is  a  perfect i steam  engine  in  breeches.'  .  .  .  He  is 
the  most  democratic  judge  I  ever  knew. ...  I  have  often 
thought  we  should  cut  a  queer  figure  if  one  of  our  Suf 
folk  bar  should  accidentally  drop  in."2 

Meantime,  changes  were  taking  place  in  the  political 
map  of  Illinois,  which  did  not  escape  the  watchful  eye 
of  Judge  Douglas.    By  the  census  of  1840,  the  State 
was  entitled  to  seven,  instead  of  four  representatives 
in  Congress.3     A  reapportionment  act  was  therefore 
to  be  expected  from  the  next  legislature.    Democrats 
were  already  at  work  plotting  seven  Democratic  dis 
tricts  on  paper,  for,  with  a  majority  in  the  legislature, 
they  could  redistrict  the  State  at  will.    A  gerrymander 
was  the  outcome.4    If  Douglas  did  not  have  a  hand  in  > 
the  reapportionment,  at  least  his  friends  saw  to  it  that 
a  desirable  district  was  carved  out,  which  included 
the  most  populous  counties  in  his  circuit.    Who  would   , 
be  a  likelier  candidate  for  Congress  in  this  Democratic  / 
constituency  than  the  popular  judge  of  the  Fifth  Cir-  \ 
cuit  Court? 

Seven  of  the  ten  counties  composing  the  Fifth  Con 
gressional  District  were  within  the  so-called  "military 
tract,"  between  the  Mississippi  and  Illinois  rivers; 

•Arnold,  Eeminiscenees  of  the  Illinois  Bar. 

2  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  698. 

1  Statute  of  June  25,  1842. 

*A  sheet  called  The  Gerrymander  was  published  in  March  1843, 
which  contained  a  series  of  cartoons  exhibiting  the  monstrosities  of  this 
apportionment.  The  Fifth  District  is  called  ' '  the  Nondescript. ' ' 


LAW  AND   POLITICS  65 

three  counties  lay  to  the  east  on  the  lower  course  of  the 
Illinois.  Into  this  frontier  region  population  began 
to  flow  in  the  twenties,  from  the  Sangamo  country; 
and  the  organization  of  county  after  county  attested 
the  rapid  expansion  northward.  Like  the  people  of 
southern  Illinois,  the  first  settlers  were  of  Southern 
extraction ;  but  they  were  followed  by  Pennsylvanians, 
New  Yorkers,  and  New  Englanders.  In  the  later 
thirties,  the  Northern  immigration,  to  which  Douglas 
belonged,  gave  a  somewhat  different  complexion  to 
Peoria,  Fulton,  and  other  adjoining  counties.  Yet  there 
were  diverse  elements  in  the  district:  Peoria  had  a 
cosmopolitan  population  of  Irish,  English,  Scotch,  and 
German  immigrants ;  Quincy  became  a  city  of  refuge 
for  " Young  Germany,"  after  the  revolutionary  dis 
turbances  of  1830  in  Europe.1 

No  sooner  had  the  reapportionment  act  passed  than 
certain  members  of  the  legislature,  together  with 
Democrats  who  held  no  office,  took  it  upon  themselves  to 
call  a  nominating  convention,  on  a  basis  of  representa 
tion  determined  in  an  equally  arbitrary  fashion.2  The 
summons  was  obeyed  nevertheless.  Forty  "respect 
able  Democats"  assembled  at  Griggsville,  in  Pike 
County,  on  June  5,  1843.  It  was  a  most  satisfactory 
body.  The  delegates  did  nothing  but  what  was  expected 
of  them.  On  the  second  ballot,  a  majority  cast  their 
votes  for  Douglas  as  the  candidate  of  the  party  for 
Congress.  The  other  aspirants  then  graciously  with- 

1  Patterson,  Early   Society   in   Southern   Illinois,    Fergus    Historical 
Series  No.  14 ;  Kb'rner,  Das  deutsche  Element  in  den  Vereinigten  Staaten, 
pp.  245,  277;   Baker,  America  as  the  Political  Utopia  of  Young  Ger 
many;  Peoria  "Register,  June  30,  1838;  Ballance,  History  of  Peoria,  pp. 
201-202. 

2  Illinois  State  Register,  March  10,  1843. 

5 


66  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

drew  their  claims,  and  pledged  their  cordial  support 
to  the  regular  nominee  of  the  convention.1  Such  ma 
chine-like  precision  warmed  the  hearts  of  Democratic 
politicians.  The  editor  of  the  People's  Advocate  de 
clared  the  integrity  of  Douglas  to  be  "  as  unspotted  as 
the  vestal's  fame — as  untarnished  and  as  pure  as  the 
driven  snow. ' ' 

The  Griggsville  convention  also  supplied  the  req 
uisite  machinery  for  the  campaign:  vigilant  precinct 
committees ;  county  committees ;  a  district  correspond 
ing  committee ;  a  central  district  committee.  The  party 
now  pinned  its  faith  to  the  efficiency  of  its  organization, 
as  well  as  to  the  popularity  of  its  candidate. 

Douglas  made  a  show  of  declining  the  nomination 
on  the  score  of  ill-health,  but  yielded  to  the  urgent  soli 
citations  of  friends,  who  would  fain  have  him  believe 
that  he  was  the  only  Democrat  who  could  carry  the 
district.2  Secretly  pleased  to  be  overruled,  Douglas 
burned  his  bridges  behind  him  by  resigning  his  office, 
and  plunged  into  the  thick  of  the  battle.  His  opponent 
was  0.  H.  Browning,  a  Kentuckian  by  birth  and  a 
Whig  by  choice.  It  was  Kentucky  against  Vermont, 
South  against  North,  for  neither  was  unwilling  to 
appeal  to  sectional  prejudice.  Time  has  obscured  the 
political  issues  which  they  debated  from  Peoria  to 
Macoupin  and  back ;  but  history  has  probably  suffered 
no  great  loss.  Men,  not  measures,  were  at  stake  in 
this  campaign,  for  on  the  only  national  issue  which 
they  seemed  to  have  discussed — Oregon— they  were  in 
practical  agreement.3  Both  cultivated  the  little  arts 

1  Illinois  State  "Register,  June  16,  1843. 

2  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  55 ;  Wheeler,  Biographical  History  of  Congress, 
p.  75.  8  Globe,  28  Cong.  1  Sess.  App.  pp.  598  ff. 


LAW  AND    POLITICS  67 

which  relieve  the  tedium  of  politics.  Douglas  talked 
in  heart  to  heart  fashion  with  his  "  esteemed  fellow- 
citizens,"  inquired  for  the  health  of  their  families,  ex 
pressed  grief  when  he  learned  that  John  had  the 
measles  and  that  Sally  was  down  with  the  chills  and 
fever.1  And  if  Browning  was  less  successful  in  this 
gentle  method  of  wooing  voters,  it  was  because  he  had 
less  genuine  interest  in  the  plain  common  people,  not 
because  he  despised  the  petty  arts  of  the  politician. 

The  canvass  was  short  but  exhausting.  Douglas 
addressed  public  gatherings  for  forty  successive  days ; 
and  when  election  day  came,  he  was  prostrated  by  a 
fever  from  which  he  did  not  fully  recover  for  months.2 
Those  who  gerrymandered  the  State  did  their  work 
well.  Only  one  district  failed  to  elect  a  Democratic 
Congressman.  Douglas  had  a  majority  over  Browning 
of  four  hundred  and  sixty-one  votes.3  This  cheering 
news  hastened  his  convalescence,  so  that  by  November 
he  was  able  to  visit  his  mother  in  Canandaigua.  Mem 
ber  of  Congress  at  the  age  of  thirty!  He  had  every 
reason  to  be  well  satisfied  with  himself.  He  was  fully 
conscious  that  he  had  begun  a  new  chapter  in  his  career. 

1  Alton  Telegraph,  July  20,  1843. 

3  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  56 ;  Wheeler,  Biographical  History  of  Congress, 
p.  75;  Alton  Telegraph,  August  26,  1843. 

8  According  to  the  returns  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 
The  Whig  Almanac  gives  451  as  Douglas's  majority. 


CHAPTER  IV 

UNDEK  THE  AEGIS  OF  ANDKEW  JACKSON 

In  his  own  constituency  a  member  of  the  national 
House  of  Representatives  may  be  a  marked  man ;  but 
his  office  confers  no  particular  distinction  at  the  na 
tional  capital.  He  must  achieve  distinction  either  by 
native  talent  or  through  fortuitous  circumstance; 
rarely  is  greatness  thrust  upon  him.  A  newly  elected 
member  labors  under  a  peculiar  and  immediate  neces 
sity  to  acquire  importance,  since  the  time  of  his  pro 
bation  is  very  brief.  The  representative  who  takes 
his  seat  in  December  of  the  odd  year,  must  stand 
for  re-election  in  the  following  year.  Between  these 
termini,  lies  only  a  single  session.  During  his  absence 
eager  rivals  may  be  undermining  his  influence  at  home, 
and  the  very  possession  of  office  may  weaken  his 
chances  among  those  disposed  to  consider  rotation 
in  office  a  cardinal  principle  of  democracy.  If  a  newly 
elected  congressman  wishes  to  continue  in  office,  he  is 
condemned  to  do  something  great. 

What  qualities  had  Douglas  which  would  single  him 
out  from  the  crowd  and  impress  his  constituents  with 
a  sense  of  his  capacity  for  public  service!  What  had 
he  to  offset  his  youth,  his  rawness,  and  his  legislative 
inexperience!  None  of  his  colleagues  cared  a  fig  about 
his  record  in  the  Illinois  Legislature  and  on  the  Bench. 
In  Congress,  as  then  constituted,  every  man  had  to 
stand  on  his  own  feet,  unsupported  by  the  dubious 
props  of  a  local  reputation. 

68 


UNDER  THE  AEGIS  OF  JACKSON  69 

There  was  certainly  nothing  commanding  in  the 
figure  of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois.  "He  had  a 
herculean  frame, "  writes  a  contemporary,  "with  the 
exception  of  his  lower  limbs,  which  were  short  and 
small,  dwarfing  what  otherwise  would  have  been  a  con 
spicuous  figure.  .  .  .  His  large  round  head  surmounted 
a  massive  neck,  and  his  features  were  symmetrical, 
although  his  small  nose  deprived  them  of  dignity."1 
It  was  his  massive  forehead,  indeed,  that  redeemed 
his  appearance  from  the  commonplace.  Beneath  his 
brow  were  deep-set,  dark  eyes  that  also  challenged 
attention.2  It  was  not  a  graceful  nor  an  attractive 
exterior  surely,  but  it  was  the  very  embodiment  of 
force.  Moreover,  the  Little  Giant  had  qualities  of 
mind  and  heart  that  made  men  forget  his  physical 
shortcomings.  His  ready  wit,  his  suavity,  and  his 
heartiness  made  him  a  general  favorite  almost  at  once.3 
He  was  soon  able  to  demonstrate  his  intellectual  power. 

The  House  was  considering  a  bill  to  remit  the  fine 
imposed  upon  General  Andrew  Jackson  at  New  Orleans 
for  contempt  of  court.  It  was  a  hackneyed  theme.  No 
new,  extenuating  circumstances  could  be  adduced  to 
clear  the  old  warrior  of  high-handed  conduct;  but  a 
presidential  election  was  approaching  and  there  was 
political  capital  to  be  made  by  defending  "Old  Hick 
ory."  From  boyhood  Douglas  had  idolized  Andrew 
Jackson.  With  much  the  same  boyish  indignation 
which  led  him  to  tear  down  the  coffin  handbills  in  old 
Brandon,  he  now  sprang  to  the  defense  of  his  hero. 
The  case  had  been  well  threshed  already.  Jackson 

*Poore,  Keminiscences,  I,  pp.  316-317. 

2  Joseph  Wallace  in  the  Illinois  State  Register,  April  19,  1885, 

8  Forney,  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  I,  p.  146. 


70  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

had  been  defended  eloquently,  and  sometimes  truth 
fully.  A  man  of  less  audacity  would  have  hesitated 
to  swell  this  tide  of  eloquence,  and  at  first,  it  seemed 
as  though  Douglas  had  little  but  vehemence  to  add  to 
the  eulogies  already  pronounced.  There  was  nothing 
novel  in  the  assertion  that  Jackson  had  neither  vio 
lated  the  Constitution  by  declaring  martial  law  at  New 
Orleans,  nor  assumed  any  authority  which  was  not 
1 1 fully  authorized  and  legalized  by  his  position,  his 
duty,  and  the  unavoidable  necessity  of  the  case.''  The 
House  was  used  to  these  dogmatic  reiterations.  But 
Douglas  struck  into  untrodden  ways  when  he  con 
tended,  that  even  if  Jackson  had  violated  the  laws  and 
the  Constitution,  his  condemnation  for  contempt  of 
court  was  "unjust,  irregular  and  illegal."  Every  un 
lawful  act  is  not  necessarily  a  contempt  of  court,  he 
argued.  "The  doctrine  of  contempts  only  applies  to 
those  acts  which  obstruct  the  proceedings  of  the  court, 
and  against  which  the  general  laws  of  the  land  do  not 
afford  adequate  protection.  ...  It  is  incumbent  upon 
those  who  defend  and  applaud  the  conduct  of  the  judge 
to  point  out  the  specific  act  done  by  General  Jackson 
which  constituted  a  contempt  of  court.  The  mere 
declaration  of  martial  law  is  not  of  that  character.  .  .  . 
It  was  a  matter  over  which  the  civil  tribunals  had  no 
jurisdiction,  and  with  which  they  had  no  concern,  un 
less  some  specific  crime  had  been  committed  or  injury 
done;  and  not  even  then  until  it  was  brought  before 
them  according  to  the  forms  of  law."1 

The  old  hero  had  never  had  a  more  adroit  counsel. 
Like  a  good  lawyer,  Douglas  seemed  to  feel  himself 
in  duty  bound  to  spar  for  every  technical  advantage, 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  44. 


UNDER  THE  AEGIS  OF  JACKSON      71 

and  to  construe  the  law,  wherever  possible,  in  favor 
of  his  client.  At  the  same  time  he  did  not  forget  that 
the  House  was  the  jury  in  this  case,  and  capable  of 
human  emotions  upon  which  he  might  play.  At  times 
he  became  declamatory  beyond  the  point  of  good  taste. 
In  voice  and  manner  he  betrayed  the  school  in  which 
he  had  been  trained.  "When  I  hear  gentlemen,"  he 
cried  in  strident  tones,  "attempting  to  justify  this 
unrighteous  fine  upon  General  Jackson  upon  the 
ground  of  non-compliance  with  rules  of  court  and  mere 
formalities,  I  must  confess  that  I  cannot  appreciate 
the  force  of  the  argument.  In  cases  of  war  and  deso 
lation,  in  times  of  peril  and  disaster,  we  should  look 
at  the  substance  and  not  the  shadow  of  things.  I  envy 
not  the  feelings  of  the  man  who  can  reason  coolly  and 
calmly  about  the  force  of  precedents  and  the  tendency 
of  examples  in  the  fury  of  the  war-cry,  when  l  booty 
and  beauty'  is  the  watchword.  Talk  not  to  me  about 
rules  and  forms  in  court  when  the  enemy's  cannon 
are  pointed  at  the  door,  and  the  flames  encircle  the 
cupola !  The  man  whose  stoicism  would  enable  him  to 
philosophize  coolly  under  these  circumstances  would 
fiddle  while  the  Capitol  was  burning,  and  laugh  at  the 
horror  and  anguish  that  surrounded  him  in  the  midst 
of  the  conflagration!  I  claim  not  the  possession  of 
these  remarkable  feelings.  I  concede  them  all  to  those 
who  think  that  the  savior  of  New  Orleans  ought  to 
be  treated  like  a  criminal  for  not  possessing  them  in  a 
higher  degree.  Their  course  in  this  debate  has  proved 
them  worthy  disciples  of  the  doctrine  they  profess. 
Let  them  receive  all  the  encomiums  which  such  senti 
ments  are  calculated  to  inspire."1 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  45. 


72  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

His  closing  words  were  marked  with  much  the  same 
perfervid  rhetoric,  only  less  objectionable  because  they 
were  charged  with  genuine  emotion :  l '  Can  gentlemen 
see  nothing  to  admire,  nothing  to  commend,  in  the 
closing  scenes,  when,  fresh  from  the  battlefield,  the 
victorious  general — the  idol  of  his  army  and  the 
acknowledged  savior  of  his  countrymen — stood  before 
Judge  Hall,  and  quelled  the  tumult  and  indignant 
murmurs  of  the  multitude  by  telling  him  that  'the 
same  arm  which  had  defended  the  city  from  the  ravages 
of  a  foreign  enemy  should  protect  him  in  the  discharge 
of  his  duty?'  Is  this  the  conduct  of  a  lawless  des 
perado,  who  delights  in  trampling  upon  Constitution, 
and  law,  and  right?  Is  there  no  reverence  for  the  su 
premacy  of  the  laws  and  the  civil  institutions  of  the 
country  displayed  on  this  occasion?  If  such  acts  of 
heroism  and  moderation,  of  chivalry  and  submission, 
have  no  charms  to  excite  the  admiration  or  soften  the 
animosities  of  gentlemen  in  the  Opposition,  I  have  no 
desire  to  see  them  vote  for  this  bill.  The  character 
of  the  hero  of  New  Orleans  requires  no  endorsement 
from  such  a  source.  They  wish  to  fix  a  mark,  a  stigma 
of  reproach,  upon  his  character,  and  send  him  to  his 
grave  branded  as  a  criminal.  His  stern,  inflexible 
adherence  to  Democratic  principles,  his  unwavering 
devotion  to  his  country,  and  his  intrepid  opposition 
to  her  enemies,  have  so  long  thwarted  their  unhallowed 
schemes  of  ambition  and  power,  that  they  fear  the 
potency  of  his  name  on  earth,  even  after  his  spirit  shall 
have  ascended  to  heaven." 

"An  eloquent,  sophistical  speech,  prodigiously  ad 
mired  by  the  slave  Democracy  of  the  House, 9 '  was  the 
comment  of  John  Quincy  Adams ;  words  of  high  praise, 


UNDER  THE  AEGIS  OF  JACKSON      73 

for  the  veteran  statesman  had  little  patience  with  the 
style  of  oratory  affected  by  this  "homunculus."1     A 
correspondent  of  a  Richmond  newspaper  wrote  that 
this  effort  had  given  Douglas  high  rank  as  a  debater.2 
Evidence  on  every  hand  confirms  the  impression  that  A 
by  a  single,  happy  stroke  the  young  Illinoisan  had  I 
achieved   enviable   distinction;    but  whether  he  hadj 
qualities  which  would  secure  an  enduring  reputation, 
was  still  open  to  question. 

In  the  long  run,  the  confidence  of  party  associates 
is  the  surest  passport  to  real  influence  in  the  House. 
It  might  easily  happen,  indeed,  that  Douglas,  with  all 
his  rough  eloquence,  would  remain  an  impotent  legis 
lator.  The  history  of  Congress  is  strewn  with  ora 
torical  derelicts,  who  have  often  edified  their  auditors, 
but  quite  as  often  blocked  the  course  of  legislation. 
No  one  knew  better  than  Douglas,  that  only  as  he 
served  his  party,  could  he  hope  to  see  his  wishes  crys 
tallize  into  laws,  and  his  ambitions  assume  the  guise 
of  reality.  His  opportunity  to  render  effective  service 
came  also  in  this  first  session. 

Four  States  had  neglected  to  comply  with  the  recent 
act  of  Congress  reapportioning  representation,  having 
elected  their  twenty-one  members  by  general  ticket. 
The  language  of  the  statute  was  explicit:  "In  every 
case  where  a  State  is  entitled  to  more  than  one  Repre 
sentative,  the  number  to  which  each  State  shall  be 
entitled  under  this  apportionment  shall  be  elected  by 
districts  composed  of  contiguous  territory  equal  in 
number  to  the  number  of  Representatives,  to  which 
said  State  may  be  entitled,  no  one  district  electing 

1  J.  Q.  Adams,  Memoirs,  XI,  p.  478. 

2  Bichmond  Enquirer,  Jan.  6,  1844. 


74  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

more  than  one  Bepresentative."1  Now  all  but  two  of 
these  twenty-one  Representatives  were  Democrats. 
Would  a  Democratic  majority  punish  this  flagrant 
transgression  of  Federal  law  by  unseating  the  of 
fenders  ? 

In  self-respect  the  Democratic  members  of  the 
House  could  not  do  less  than  appoint  a  committee  to 
investigate  whether  the  representatives  in  question 
had  been  elected  "in  conformity  to  the  Constitution 
and  the  law."2  Thereupon  it  devolved  upon  the  six 
Democratic  members  of  this  committee  of  nine  to  con 
struct  a  theory,  by  which  they  might  seat  their  party 
associates  under  cover  of  legality.  Not  that  they  held 
any  such  explicit  mandate  from  the  party,  nor  that 
they  deliberately  went  to  work  to  pervert  the  law ;  they 
were  simply  under  psychological  pressure  from  which 
only  men  of  the  severest  impartiality  could  free  them 
selves.  The  work  of  drafting  the  majority  report  (it 
was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  committee  would 
divide),  fell  to  Douglas.  It  pronounced  the  law  of 
1842  "not  a  law  made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  and  valid,  operative,  and 
binding  upon  the  States."  Accordingly,  the  represen 
tatives  of  the  four  States  in  question  were  entitled  to 
their  seats. 

By  what  process  of  reasoning  had  Douglas  reached 
this  conclusion?  The  report  directed  its  criticism 
chiefly  against  the  second  section  of  the  Act  of  1842, 
which  substituted  the  district  for  the  general  ticket  in 
congressional  elections.  The  Constitution  provides 
that  "the  Times,  Places,  and  Manner  of  holding  elec- 

1  Act  of  June  25,  1842;  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  V,  p.  491. 

2  December  14,  1843.     Globe,  28  Cong.  1  Sess.  p.  36. 


UNDER  THE  AEGIS  OF  JACKSON      75 

tions  for  Senators  and  Representatives,  shall  be  pre 
scribed  in  each  State  by  the  Legislature  thereof;  but 
the  Congress  may  at  any  time  by  Law  make  or  alter 
such  Eegula tions. "  But  by  the  law  of  1842,  contended 
the  report,  Congress  had  only  partially  exercised  its 
power,  and  had  attempted  "to  subvert  the  entire  sys 
tem  of  legislation  adopted  by  the  several  States  of  the 
Union,  and  to  compel  them  to  conform  to  certain  rules 
established  by  Congress  for  their  government."  Con 
gress  "may"  make  or  alter  such  regulations,  but  "the 
right  to  change  State  laws  or  to  enact  others  which 
shall  suspend  them,  does  not  imply  the  right  to  compel 
the  State  legislatures  to  make  such  change  or  new 
enactments."  Congress  may  exercise  the  privilege 
of  making  such  regulations,  only  when  the  State  legis 
latures  refuse  to  act,  or  act  in  a  way  to  subvert  the 
Constitution.  If  Congress  acts  at  all  in  fixing  times, 
places,  and  manner  of  elections,  it  must  act  exhaust 
ively,  leaving  nothing  for  the  State  legislatures  to  do. 
The  Act  of  1842  was  general  in  its  nature,  and  inopera 
tive  without  State  legislation.  The  history  of  the  Con 
stitutional  Convention  of  1787  was  cited  to  prove  that 
it  was  generally  understood  that  Congress  would  ex 
ercise  this  power  only  in  a  few  specified  cases.1 

Replying  to  the  attacks  which  this  report  evoked, 
Douglas  took  still  higher  ground.  He  was  ready  to 
affirm  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  district  the 
States.  To  concede  to  Congress  so  great  a  power  was 
to  deny  those  reserved  rights  of  the  States,  without 
which  their  sovereignty  would  be  an  empty  title. 
"Congress  may  alter,  but  it  cannot  supersede  these 
regulations  [of  the  States]  till  it  supplies  others  in 

1Niles;  Eegister,  Vol.  65,  pp.  393-396. 


76  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

their  places,  so  as  to  leave  the  right  of  representation 
perfect. '71 

The  argument  of  the  report  was  bold  and  ingenious, 
if  not  convincing.  The  minority  were  ready  to  admit 
that  the  case  had  been  cleverly  stated,  although  hardly 
a  man  doubted  that  political  considerations  had 
weighed  most  heavily  with  the  chairman  of  the  commit 
tee.  Douglas  resented  the  suggestion  with  such  warmth, 
however,  that  it  is  charitable  to  suppose  he  was  not 
conscious  of  the  bias  under  which  he  had  labored. 

Upon  one  auditor,  who  to  be  sure  was  inexpressibly 
bored  by  the  whole  discussion  of  the  "everlasting  gen 
eral  ticket  elections,"  Douglas  made  an  unhappy  im 
pression.  John  Quincy  Adams  recorded  in  his  diary, — 
that  diary  which  was  becoming  a  sort  of  Kogues'  Gal 
lery:  "He  now  raved  out  his  hour  in  abusive  invec 
tives  upon  the  members  who  had  pointed  out  its 
slanders  and  upon  the  Whig  party.  His  face  was  con 
vulsed,  his  gesticulation  frantic,  and  he  lashed  himself 
into  such  a  heat  that  if  his  body  had  been  made  of 
combustible  matter,  it  would  have  burnt  out.  In  the 
midst  of  his  roaring,  to  save  himself  from  choking,  he 
stripped  off  and  cast  away  his  cravat,  and  unbuttoned 
his  waist-coat,  and  had  the  air  and  aspect  of  a  half- 
naked  pugilist.  And  this  man  comes  from  a  judicial 
bench,  and  passes  for  an  eloquent  orator.'72 

No  one  will  mistake  this  for  an  impartial  descrip 
tion.  Nearly  every  Democrat  who  spoke  upon  this 
tedious  question,  according  to  Adams,  either  "raved7' 
or  "foamed  at  the  mouth."  The  old  gentleman  was 
too  wearied  and  disgusted  with  the  affair  to  be  a  fair 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.  1  Sess.  pp.  276-277. 
a  J.  Q.  Adams,  Memoirs,  XI,  p.  510. 


UNDEE  THE  AEGIS  OF  JACKSON      77 

reporter.  But  as  a  caricature,  this  picture  of  the  young 
man  from  Illinois  certainly  hits  off  the  style  which  he 
affected,  in  common  with  most  Western  orators. 

Notwithstanding  his  very  substantial  services  to  his 
party,  Douglas  had  sooner  or  later  to  face  his  constit 
uents  with  an  answer  to  the  crucial  question,  "What 
have  you  done  for  us?"  It  is  a  hard,  brutal  question, 
which  has  blighted  many  a  promising  career  in  Ameri 
can  politics.  The  interest  which  Douglas  exhibited  in 
the  Western  Harbors  bill  was  due,  in  part  at  least,  to 
his  desire  to  propitiate  those  by  virtue  of  whose  suf 
frages  he  was  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives.  At  the  same  time,  he  was  no  doubt  sincerely  de 
voted  to  the  measure,  because  he  believed  profoundly 
in  its  national  character.  Local  and  national  interests 
were  so  inseparable  in  his  mind,  that  he  could  urge 
the  improvement  of  the  Illinois  Eiver  as  a  truly  na 
tional  undertaking.  "Through  this  channel,  and  this 
alone,"  he  declared  all  aglow  with  enthusiasm,  "we 
have  a  connected  and  uninterrupted  navigation  for 
steamboats  and  large  vessels  from  the  Atlantic  Ocean 
and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  to  all  the  northern  lakes." 
Considerations  of  war  and  defense,  as  well  as  of  peace 
and  commerce,  counselled  the  proposed  expenditure. 
"We  have  no  fleet  upon  the  lakes;  we  have  no  navy- 
yard  there  at  which  we  could  construct  one,  and  no 
channel  through  which  we  could  introduce  our  vessels 
from  the  sea-board.  In  times  of  war,  those  lakes  must 
be  defended,  if  defended  at  all,  by  a  fleet  from  the  naval 
depot  and  a  yard  on  the  Mississippi  Eiver."  After  the 
State  of  Illinois  had  expended  millions  on  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  canal,  was  Congress  to  begrudge  a  few 
thousands  to  remove  the  sand-bars  which  impeded 


78  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

navigation  in  this  "  national  highway  by  an  irrevocable 
ordinance"?1 

This  special  plea  for  the  Illinois  Eiver  was  prefaced 
by  a  lengthy  exposition  of  Democratic  doctrine  respect 
ing  internal  improvements,  for  it  was  incumbent  upon 
every  good  Democrat  to  explain  a  measure  which 
seemed  to  countenance  a  broad  construction  of  the 
powers  of  the  Federal  government.  Douglas  was  at 
particular  pains  to  show  that  the  bill  did  not  depart 
from  the  principles  laid  down  in  President  Jackson's 
famous  Maysvilie  Eoad  veto-message.2  To  him  Jack 
son  incarnated  the  party  faith;  and  his  public  docu 
ments  were  a  veritable,  political  testament.  In  the 
art  of  reading  consistency  into  his  own,  or  the  conduct 
of  another,  Douglas  had  no  equal.  To  the  end  of  his 
days  he  possessed  in  an  extraordinary  degree  the  subtle 
power  of  redistributing  emphasis  so  as  to  produce  a 
desired  effect.  It  was  the  most  effective  and  the  most 
insidious  of  his  many  natural  gifts,  for  it  often  won 
immediate  ends  at  the  permanent  sacrifice  of  his  rep 
utation  for  candor  and  veracity.  The  immediate  re 
sult  of  this  essay  in  interpretation  of  Jacksonian  prin 
ciples,  was  to  bring  down  upon  Douglas's  devoted  head 
the  withering  charge,  peculiarly  blighting  to  a  budding 
statesman,  that  he  was  conjuring  with  names  to  the 
exclusion  of  arguments.  With  biting  sarcasm,  Eepre- 
sentative  Holmes  drew  attention  to  the  gentleman's 
disposition,  after  the  fashion  of  little  men,  to  advance 
to  the  fray  under  the  seven-fold  shield  of  the  Telamon 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  549-550.  For  the  trend  of  public 
opinion  in  the  district  which  Douglas  represented,  see  Peoria  Register, 
September  21,  1839. 

3  Globe,  28  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  527-528 


UNDER  THE  AEGIS  OF  JACKSON      79 

Ajax — a  classical  allusion  which  was  altogether  lost 
on  the  young  man  from  Illinois. 

The  appropriation  for  the  Illinois  Eiver  was  stricken 
from  the  Western  Harbors  bill  much  to  Douglas's 
regret.1  Still,  he  had  evinced  a  genuine  concern  for 
the  interests  of  his  constituents  and  his  reward  was 
even  now  at  hand.  Early  in  the  year  the  Peoria  Press 
had  recommended  a  Democratic  convention  to  nom 
inate  a  candidate  for  Congress.2  The  State  Register, 
and  other  journals  friendly  to  Douglas,  took  up  the 
cry,  giving  the  movement  thus  all  the  marks  of  spon 
taneity.  The  Democratic  organization  was  found  to 
be  intact;  the  convention  was  held  early  in  May  at 
Pittsfield ;  and  the  Honorable  Stephen  A.  Douglas  was 
unanimously  re-nominated  for  Eepresentative  to  Con 
gress  from  the  Fifth  Congressional  District.3 

Soon  after  this  well-ordered  convention  in  the  little 
Western  town  of  Pittsfield,  came  the  national  conven 
tion  of  the  Democratic  party  at  Baltimore,  where  the 
unexpected  happened.  To  Douglas,  as  to  the  rank  and 
file  of  the  party,  the  selection  of  Polk  must  have  come 
as  a  surprise ;  but  whatever  predilections  he  may  have 
had  for  another  candidate,  were  speedily  suppressed.4 
With  the  platform,  at  least,  he  found  himself  in  hearty 
accord ;  and  before  the  end  of  the  session  he  convinced 
his  associates  on  the  Democratic  side  of  the  House,  that 
he  was  no  lukewarm  supporter  of  the  ticket. 

While  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Appropriations  bill 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  534. 

2  Illinois  State  Register,  February  9,  1844. 
*Ibid.,  May  17,  1844. 

*  It  was  intimated  that  he  had  at  first  aided  Tyler  in  his  forlorn  hope 
of  a  second  term. 


80  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

was  under  discussion  in  the  House,  a  desultory  debate 
occurred  on  the  politics  of  Colonel  Polk.  Such  digres 
sions  were  not  unusual  on  the  eve  of  a  presidential 
election.  Seizing  the  opportunity,  Douglas  obtained 
recognition  from  the  Speaker  and  launched  into  a 
turgid  speech  in  defence  of  Polk,  ' '  the  standard-bearer 
of  Democracy  and  freedom. ' '  It  had  been  charged  that 
Colonel  Polk  was  ' '  the  industrious  follower  of  Andrew 
Jackson."  Douglas  turned  the  thrust  neatly  by  as 
serting,  "He  is  emphatically  a  Young  Hickory — the 
unwavering  friend  of  Old  Hickory  in  all  his  trials — 
his  bosom  companion — his  supporter  and  defender  on 
all  occasions,  in  public  and  private,  from  his  early  boy 
hood  until  the  present  moment.  _. Norman  living  pop^ 
sessed  General  Jackson's  confidence  in  aT~g"fBater "de 
gree.  .  .  .  That  he  has  been  the  industrious  follower  of 
General  Jackson  in  those  glorious  contests  for  the 
defence  of  his  country's  rights,  will  not  be  deemed  the 
unpardonable  sin  by  the  American  people,  so  long  as 
their  hearts  beat  and  swell  with  gratitude  to  their  great 
benefactor.  He  is  the  very  man  for  the  times — a  'chip 
of  the  old  block' — of  the  true  hickory  stump.  The 
people  want  a  man  whose  patriotism,  honesty,  ability, 
and  devotion  to  democratic  principles,  have  been  tested 
and  tried  in  the  most  stormy  times  of  the  republic,  and 
never  found  wanting.  That  man  is  James  K.  Polk 
of  Tennessee."1 

There  could  be  no  better  evidence  that  Douglas  felt 
sure  of  his  own  fences,  than  his  willingness  to  assist 
in  the  general  campaign  outside  of  his  own  district 
and  State.  He  not  only  addressed  a  mass-meeting  of 
delegates  from  many  Western  States  at  Nashville, 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  598  ff. 


UNDER  THE  AEGIS  OF  JACKSON      81 

Tennessee,1  but  journeyed  to  St.  Louis  and  back  again, 
in  the  service  of  the  Democratic  Central  Committee, 
speaking  at  numerous  points  along  the  way  with  grati 
fying  success,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  grateful  words 
of  appreciation  in  the  Democratic  press.2  It  was  while 
he  was  in  attendance  on  the  convention  in  Nashville 
that  he  was  brought  face  to  face  with  Andrew  Jackson. 
The  old  hero  was  then  living  in  retirement  at  the 
Hermitage.  Thither,  as  to  a  Mecca,  all  good  Demo 
crats  turned  their  faces  after  the  convention.  Douglas 
received  from  the  old  man  a  greeting  which  warmed 
the  cockles  of  his  heart,  and  which,  duly  reported  by 
the  editor  of  the  Illinois  State  Register,  who  was  his 
companion,  was  worth  many  votes  at  the  cross-roads 
of  Illinois.  The  scene  was  described  as  follows : 

"Governor  Clay,  of  Alabama,  was  near  General 
Jackson,  who  was  himself  sitting  on  a  sofa  in  the  hall, 
and  as  each  person  entered,  the  governor  introduced 
him  to  the  hero  and  he  passed  along.  When  Judge 
Douglas  was  thus  introduced,  General  Jackson  raised 
his  still  brilliant  eyes  and  gazed  for  a  moment  in  the 
countenance  of  the  judge,  still  retaining  his  hand.  '  Are 
you  the  Mr.  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  who  delivered  a 
speech  last  session  on  the  subject  of  the  fine  imposed 
on  me  for  declaring  martial  law  at  New  Orleans  T  " 
asked  General  Jackson. 

"  'I  have  delivered  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Eepre- 
sentatives  upon  that  subject/  was  the  modest  reply 
of  our  friend. 

'  '  l  Then  stop, '  said  General  Jackson ;  i  sit  down  here 
beside  me.  I  desire  to  return  you  my  thanks  for  that 

1  Illinois  State  Register,  August  30,  1844. 
3  Ibid.,  September  27,  1844, 
6 


82  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

speech.  You  are  the  first  man  that  has  ever  relieved 
my  mind  on  a  subject  which  has  rested  upon  it  for 
thirty  years.  My  enemies  have  always  charged  me 
with  violating  the  Constitution  of  my  country  by  de 
claring  martial  law  at  New  Orleans,  and  my  friends 
have  always  admitted  the  violation,  but  have  contended 
that  circumstances  justified  me  in  that  violation.  I 
never  could  understand  how  it  was  that  the  perform 
ance  of  a  solemn  duty  to  my  country — a  duty  which, 
if  I  had  neglected,  would  have  made  me  a  traitor  in 
the  sight  of  God  and  man,  could  properly  be  pro 
nounced  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.  I  felt  con 
vinced  in  my  own  mind  that  I  was  not  guilty  of  such  a 
heinous  offense;  but  I  could  never  make  out  a  legal 
justification  of  my  course,  nor  has  it  ever  been  done, 
sir,  until  you,  on  the  floor  of  Congress,  at  the  late 
session,  established  it  beyond  the  possibility  of  cavil 
or  doubt.  I  thank  you,  sir,  for  that  speech.  It  has 
relieved  my  mind  from  the  only  circumstance  that 
rested  painfully  upon  it.  Throughout  my  whole  life 
I  never  performed  an  official  act  which  I  viewed  as  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution  of  my  country;  and  I 
can  now  go  down  to  the  grave  in  peace,  with  the  perfect 
consciousness  that  I  have  not  broken,  at  any  period  of 
my  life,  the  Constitution  or  laws  of -my  country.' 

"Thus  spoke  the  old  hero,  his  countenance  brighten 
ed  by  emotions  which  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  describe. 
"We  turned  to  look  at  Douglas — he  was  speechless.  He 
could  not  reply,  but  convulsively  shaking  the  aged 
veteran's  hand,  he  rose  and  left  the  hall.  Certainly 
General  Jackson  had  paid  him  the  highest  compliment 
he  could  have  bestowed  on  any  individual."1 

1  Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  70-71. 


UNDER  THE  AEGIS  OF  JACKSON  83 

When  the  August  elections  had  come  and  gone, 
Douglas  found  himself  re-elected  by  a  majority  of 
fourteen  hundred  votes  and  by  a  plurality  over  his 
Whig  opponent  of  more  than  seventeen  hundred.1  He 
was  to  have  another  opportunity  to  serve  his  constit 
uents;  but  the  question  was  still  open,  whether  his 
talents  were  only  those  of  an  adroit  politician  intent 
upon  his  own  advancement,  or  those  of  a  states 
man,  capable  of  conceiving  generous  national  policies 
which  would  efface  the  eager  ambitions  of  the  individ 
ual  and  the  grosser  ends  of  party. 

1  Official  returns  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 


CHAPTEE  V 

MANIFEST  DESTINY 

The  defeat  of  President  Tyler's  treaty  in  June,  1844, 
just  on  the  eve  of  the  presidential  campaign,  gave  the 
Texas  question  an  importance  which  the  Democrats 
in  convention  had  not  foreseen,  when 'lltey  inserted  the 
re- annexation  plank  in  the  platform.  The^o stile  at 
titude  of  Whig  senators  and  of  Clay  himself  ^toward 
annexation,  helped  to  make  Texas  a  party  Ifesue. 
While  it  cannot  be  said  that  Polk  was  elected  qn  this 
issue  alone,  there  was  some  plausibility  in  the  state 
ment  of  President  Tyler,  that  "a  controlling  majority 
of  the  people,  and  a  majority  of  the  States,  have  de 
clared  in  favor  of  immediate  annexation. "  At  all 
events,  when  Congress  reassembled,  President  Tyler 
promptly  acted  on  this  supposition.  In  his  annual  mes 
sage,  and  again  in  a  special  message  a  fortnight  later, 
he  urged  "prompt  and  immediate  action  on  the  subject 
of  annexation. ' '  Since  the  two  governments  had  al 
ready  agreed  on  terms  of  annexation,  he  recommended 
their  adoption  by  Congress  "in  the  form  of  a  joint 
resolution,  or  act,  to  be  perfected  and  made  binding 
on  the  two  countries,  when  adopted  in  like  manner  by 
the  government  of  Texas."1  A  policy  which  had  not 
been  able  to  secure  the  approval  of  two-thirds  of  the 
Senate  was  now  to  be  endorsed  by  a  majority  of  both 
houses.  In  short,  a  legislative  treaty  was  to  be  enacted 
by  Congress. 

1  Message  of  December  3.  1844. 

84 


MANIFEST    DESTINY  85 

The  Hon.  Stephen  A.  Douglas  had  taken  his  seat  in 
the  House  with  augmented  self-assurance.  He  had  not 
only  secured  his  re-election  and  the  success  of  his 
party  in  Illinois,  but  he  had  served  most  acceptably 
as  a  campaign  speaker  in  Folk's  own  State.  Surely 
he  was  entitled  to  some  consideration  in  the  councils 
of  his  party.  In  the  appointment  of  standing  com 
mittees,  he  could  hardly  hope  for  a  chairmanship. 
It  was  reward  enough  to  be  made  a  member  of  the 
Committee  of  Elections  and  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary.  On  the  paramount  question  before  this  Con 
gress,  he  entertained  strong  convictions,  which  he  had 
no  hesitation  in  setting  forth  in  a  series  of  resolutions, 
while  older  members  were  still  feeling  their  way.  The 
preamble  of  these  "  Joint  Eesolutions  for  the  annexa 
tion  of  Texas"  was  in  itself  a  little  stump  speech: 
"Whereas  the  treaty  of  1803  had  provided  that  the 
people  of  Texas  should  be  incorporated  into  the  Union 
and  admitted  as  soon  as  possible  to  citizenship,  and 
whereas  the  present  inhabitants  have  signified  their 
willingness  to  be  re-annexed;  therefore"  ....  Par 
ticular  interest  attaches  to  the  Eighth  Eesolution 
which  proposed  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  through  Texas,  "inasmuch  as  the  compromise  had 
been  made  prior  to  the  treaty  of  1819,  by  which  Texas 
was  ceded  to  Spain."1  The  resolutions  never  com 
manded  any  support  worth  mentioning,  attention  being 
drawn  to  the  joint  resolution  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs  which  was  known  to  have  the  sanction 
of  the  President.  The  proposal  of  Douglas  to  settle 
the  matter  of  slavery  in  Texas  in  the  act  of  annexa 
tion  itself,  was  perhaps  his  only  contribution  to  the 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  85. 


86  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

discussion  of  ways  and  means.  An  aggressive  South 
ern  group  of  representatives  readily  caught  up  the 
suggestion. 

The  debate  upon  the  joint  resolution  was  well  under 
way  before  Douglas  secured  recognition  from  the 
Speaker.  The  opposition  was  led  by  Winthrop  of 
Massachusetts  and  motived  by  reluctance  to  admit 
slave  territory,  as  well  as  by  constitutional  scruples 
regarding  the  process  of  annexation  by  joint  resolu 
tion.  Douglas  spoke  largely  in  rejoinder  to  Winthrop. 
A  clever  retort  to  Winthrop 's  reference  to  "this  odious 
measure  devised  for  sinister  purposes  by  a  President 
not  elected  by  the  people,"  won  for  Douglas  the  good- 
natured  attention  of  the  House.  It  was  President 
Adams  and  not  President  Tyler,  Douglas  remon 
strated,  who  had  first  opened  negotiations  for  annexa 
tion;  but  perhaps  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
intended  to  designate  his  colleague,  Mr.  Adams,  when 
he  referred  to  "  a  president  not  elected  by  the  people"!1 
Moreover,  it  was  Mr.  Adams,  who  as  Secretary  of 
State  had  urged  our  claims  to  all  the  country  as  far  as 
the  Eio  del  Norte,  under  the  Treaty  of  1803.  In  spite 
of  these  just  boundary  claims  and  our  solemn  promise 
to  admit  the  inhabitants  of  the  Louisiana  purchase 
to  citizenship,  we  had  violated  that  pledge  by  ceding 
Texas  to  Spain  in  1819.  These  people  had  pro 
tested  against  this  separation,  only  a  few  months  after 
the  signing  of  the  treaty;  they  now  asked  us  to  re 
deem  our  ancient  pledge.  Honor  and  violated  faith 
required  the  immediate  annexation  of  Texas.2  Had 
Douglas  known,  or  taken  pains  to  ascertain,  who  these 
people  were,  who  protested  against  the  treaty  of  1819, 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  65.  2  Ibid.,  p.  66. 


MANIFEST   DESTINY  87 

he  would  hardly  have  wasted  his  commiseration  upon 
them.  Enough:  the  argument  served  his  immediate 
purpose. 

To  those  who  contended  that  Congress  had  no 
power  to  annex  territory  with  a  view  to  admitting  new 
States,  Douglas  replied  that  the  Constitution  not  only 
grants  specific  powers  to  Congress,  but  also  general 
power  to  pass  acts  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  out 
the  specific  powers.  Congress  may  admit  new  States, 
but  in  the  present  instance  Congress  cannot  exercise 
that  power  without  annexing  territory.  ' t  The  annexa 
tion  of  Texas  is  a  prerequisite  without  the  performance 
of  which  Texas  cannot  be  admitted."1  The  Constitu 
tion  does  not  state  that  the  President  and  Senate  may 
admit  new  States,  nor  that  they  shall  make  laws  for 
the  acquisition  of  territory  in  order  to  enable  Congress 
to  admit  new  States.  The  Constitution  declares  ex 
plicitly,  "Congress  may  admit  new  States."  "When 
the  grant  of  power  is  to  Congress,  the  authority  to  pass 
all  laws  necessary  to  its  execution  is  also  in  Congress ; 
and  the  treaty-making  power  is  to  be  confined  to  those 
cases  where  the  power  is  not  located  elsewhere  by  the 
Constitution."2 

With  those  weaklings  who  feared  lest  the  extension 
of  the  national  domain  should  react  unfavorably  upon 
our  institutions,  and  who  apprehended  war  with 
Mexico,  Douglas  had  no  patience.  The  States  of  the 
Union  were  already  drawn  closer  together  than  the 
thirteen  original  States  in  the  first  years  of  the  Union, 
because  of  the  improved  means  of  communication. 
Transportation  facilities  were  now  multiplying  more 
rapidly  than  population.  "Our  federal  system,"  he 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  66.  2  IMd.,  p.  67. 


88  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

exclaimed,  with  a  burst  of  jingoism  that  won  a  round 
of  applause  from  Western  Democrats  as  he  resumed 
his  seat,  "Our  federal  system  is  admirably  adapted  to 
the  whole  continent;  and,  while  I  would  not  violate 
the  laws  of  nations,  nor  treaty  stipulations,  nor  in  any 
manner  tarnish  the  national  honor,  I  would  exert  all 
legal  and  honorable  means  to  drive  Great  Britain  and 
the  last  vestiges  of  royal  authority  from  the  continent 
of  North  America,  and  extend  the  limits  of  the  republic 
from  ocean  to  ocean.  I  would  make  this  an  ocean- 
bound  republic,  and  have  no  more  disputes  about 
boundaries,  or  'red  lines'  upon  the  maps."1 

In  this  speech  there  was  one  notable  omission. 
The  slavery  question  was  not  once  touched  upon. 
Those  who  have  eyes  only  to  see  plots  hatched  by  the 
slave  power  in  national  politics,  are  sure  to  construe 
this  silence  as  part  of  an  ignoble  game.  It  is  possible 
that  Douglas  purposely  evaded  this  question;  but  it 
does  not  by  any  means  follow  that  he  was  deliberately 
playing  into  the  hands  of  Southern  leaders.  The 
simple  truth  is,  that  it  was  quite  possible  in  the  early 
forties  for  men,  in  all  honesty,  to  ignore  slavery,  be 
cause  they  regarded  it  either  as  a  side  issue  or  as  no 
issue  at  all.  It  was  quite  possible  to  think  on  large 
national  policies  without  confusing  them  with  slavery. 
Men  who  shared  with  Douglas  the  pulsating  life  of 
the  Northwest  wanted  Texas  as  a  "theater  for  enter 
prise  and  industry."  As  an  Ohio  representative  said, 
they  desired  "a  West  for  their  sons  and  daughters 
where  they  would  be  free  from  family  influences,  from 
associated  wealth  and  from  those  thousand  things 
which  in  the  old  settled  country  have  the  tendency  of 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  68. 


MANIFEST    DESTINY  89 

keeping  down  the  efforts  and  enterprises  of  young 
people."  The  hearts  of  those  who,  like  Douglas,  had 
carved  out  their  fortunes  in  the  new  States,  responded 
to  that  sentiment  in  a  way  which  neither  a  John  Quincy 
Adams  nor  a  Winthrop  could  understand. 

Yet  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  proposed  State 
of  Texas  was  thrust  upon  the  attention  of  Congress 
by  the  persistent  tactics  of  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
and  a  group  of  Southern  associates.  They  refused 
to  accept  all  terms  of  annexation  which  did  not 
secure  the  right  of  States  formed  south  of  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  line  to  come  into  the  Union  with 
slavery,  if  they  desired  to  do  so.1  Douglas  met  this 
opposition  with  the  suggestion  that  not  more  than  three 
States  besides  Texas  should  be  created  out  of  the  new 
State,  but  that  such  States  should  be  admitted  into 
the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the  people  of 
each  should  determine,  at  the  time  of  their  applica 
tion  to  Congress  for  admission.  As  the  germ  of  the 
doctrine  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  this  resolution  has 
both  a  personal  and  a  historic  interest.  While  it 
failed  to  pass,2  it  suggested  to  Stephens  and  his  friends 
a  mode  of  adjustment  which  might  satisfy  all  sides. 
It  was  at  his  suggestion  that  Milton  Brown  of  Ten 
nessee  proposed  resolutions  providing  for  the  admis 
sion  of  not  more  than  four  States  besides  Texas,  out  of 
the  territory  acquired.  If  these  States  should  be 
formed  south  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  they 
were  to  be  admitted  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the 
people  of  each  should  determine.  Northern  men  de 
murred,  but  Douglas  saved  the  situation  by  offering 

1  American  Historical  "Review,  VIII,  pp.  93-94. 

2  It  was  voted  down  107  to  96;  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  192. 


90  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

as  an  amendment,  "And  in  such  States  as  shall  be 
formed  north  of  said  Missouri  Compromise  line,  slav 
ery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except  for  crime,  shall 
be  prohibited."1  The  amendment  was  accepted,  and 
thus  amended,  the  joint  resolution  passed  by  an 
ample  margin  of  votes.  In  view  of  later  developments, 
this  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  is  a 
point  of  great  significance  in  the  career  of  Douglas. 

Not  long  after  Douglas  had  voiced  his  vision  of  "an 
ocean-bound  republic,"  he  was  called  upon  to  assist 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  emigrations  westward, 
from  his  own  State.  The  Mormons  in  Hancock  County 
had  become  the  most  undesirable  of  neighbors  to  his 
constituents.  Once  the  allies  of  the  Democrats,  they 
were  now  held  in  detestation  by  all  Gentiles  of  adjoin 
ing  counties,  irrespective  of  political  affiliations.  The 
announcement  of  the  doctrine  of  polygamy  by  the 
Prophet  Smith  had  been  accompanied  by  acts  of  de 
fiance  and  followed  by  depredations,  which,  while  not 
altogether  unprovoked,  aroused  the  non-Mormons  to 
a  dangerous  pitch  of  excitement.  In  the  midst  of 
general  disorder  in  Hancock  County,  Joseph  Smith  was 
murdered.  Every  deed  of  violence  was  now  attributed 
to  the  Danites,  as  the  members  of  the  militant  order 
of  the  Mormon  Church  styled  themselves.  Early  in  the 
year  1845,  the  Nauvoo  Charter  was  repealed;  and 
Governor  Ford  warned  his  quondam  friends  confiden 
tially  that  they  had  better  betake  themselves  westward, 
suggesting  California  as  "a  field  for  the  prettiest  en 
terprise  that  has  been  undertaken  in  modern  times." 
Disgraceful  outrages  filled  the  summer  months  of 
1845  in  Hancock  County.  A  band  of  Mormon-haters 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  193. 


MANIFEST    DESTINY  91 

ravaged  the  county,  burning  houses,  barns,  and  grain 
stacks,  and  driving  unprotected  Mormon  settlers  into 
Nauvoo.  To  put  an  end  to  this  state  of  affairs,  Gov 
ernor  Ford  sent  Judge  Douglas  and  Attorney-General 
McDougal,  with  a  force  of  militia  under  the  command 
of  General  Hardin,  into  Hancock  County.  Public 
meetings  in  all  the  adjoining  counties  were  now  de 
manding  the  expulsion  of  the  Mormons  in  menacing 
language.1  "While  General  Hardin  issued  a  proclama 
tion  bidding  Mormons  and  anti-Mormons  to  desist  from 
further  violence,  and  promised  that  his  scanty  force  of 
four  hundred  would  enforce  the  laws  impartially,  the 
commissioners  entered  into  negotiations  with  the 
Mormon  authorities.  On  the  pressing  demand  of  the 
commissioners  and  of  a  deputation  from  the  town  of 
Quincy,  Brigham  Young  announced  that  the  Mormons 
purposed  to  leave  Illinois  in  the  spring,  "for  some 
point  so  remote  that  there  will  not  need  to  be  a  diffi 
culty  with  the  people  and  ourselves." 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Douglas's  advice 
weighed  heavily  with  the  Mormons.  As  a  judge,  he 
had  administered  the  law  impartially  between  Mor 
mon  and  non- Mormon;  and  this  was  none  too  com 
mon  in  the  civic  history  of  the  Mormon  Church. 
As  an  aspirant  for  office,  he  had  frankly  courted  their 
suffrages;  but  times  had  changed.  The  reply  of  the 
commissioners,  though  not  unkindly  worded,  contained 
some  wholesome  advice.  "We  think  that  steps  should 
be  taken  by  you  to  make  it  apparent  that  you  are  ac 
tually  preparing  to  remove  in  the  spring.  By  carry- 

1  Linn's  Story  of  the  Mormons,  Chs.  10-20,  gives  in  great  detail  the 
facts  connected  with  this  Mormon  emigration.  I  have  borrowed  freely 
from  this  account  for  the  following  episode. 


92  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

ing  out,  in  good  faith,  your  proposition  to  remove,  as 
submitted  to  us,  we  think  you  should  be,  and  will  be, 
permitted  to  depart  peaceably  next  spring  for  your 
destination,  west  of  the  Eocky  Mountains.  .  .  .  We 
recommend  to  you  to  place  every  possible  restraint 
in  your  power  over  the  members  of  your  church,  to 
prevent  them  from  committing  acts  of  aggression  or 
retaliation  on  any  citizens  of  the  State,  as  a  contrary 
course  may,  and  most  probably  will,  bring  about  a 
collision  which  will  subvert  all  efforts  to  maintain  the 
peace  in  this  county ;  and  we  propose  making  a  similar 
request  of  your  opponents  in  this  and  the  surrounding 
counties. ' n 

Announcing  the  result  of  their  negotiations  to  the 
anti-Mormon  people  of  Hancock  County,  the  commis 
sioners  gave  equally  good  advice:  "Kemember,  what 
ever  may  be  the  aggression  against  you,  the  sympathy 
of  the  public  may  be  forfeited.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  burning  of  the  houses  of  the  Mormons  ....  was  an 
act  criminal  in  itself,  and  disgraceful  to  its  perpetrators 
....  A  resort  to,  or  persistence  in,  such  a  course  under 
existing  circumstances  will  make  you  forfeit  all  the 
respect  and  sympathy  of  the  community." 

Unhappily  this  advice  was  not  long  heeded  by  either 
side.  While  Douglas  was  giving  his  vote  for  men  and 
money  for  the  Mexican  War  and  the  gallant  Hardin 
was  serving  his  country  in  command  of  a  regiment, 
"the  last  Mormon  war"  broke  out,  which  culminated 
in  the  siege  and  evacuation  of  Nauvoo.  Passing  west 
ward  into  No-man's-land,  the  Mormons  became  eventu 
ally  the  founders  of  one  of  the  Territories  by  which 
Douglas  sought  to  span  the  continent. 

1  Linn,  Story  of  the  Mormons,  pp.  340-341. 


MANIFEST    DESTINY  93 

It  was  only  in  the  Northwest  that  the  cry  for  the 
re-occupation  of  Oregon  had  the  ring  of  sincerity; 
elsewhere  it  had  been  thought  of  as  a  response  to  the 
re-annexation  of  Texas, — more  or  less  of  a  vote-catch 
ing  device.  The  sentiment  in  Douglas's  constituency 
was  strongly  in  favor  of  an  aggressive  policy  in 
Oregon.  The  first  band  of  Americans  to  go  thither, 
for  the  single  purpose  of  settlement  and  occupation, 
set  out  from  Peoria.1  These  were  "  young  men  of  the 
right  sort,"  in  whom  the  eternal  Wanderlust  of  the 
race  had  been  kindled  by  tales  of  returned  mission 
aries.  Public  exercises  were  held  on  their  departure, 
and  the  community  sanctioned  this  outflow  of  its  youth 
ful  strength.  Dwellers  in  the  older  communities  of  the 
East  had  little  sympathy  with  this  enterprise.  It  was 
ill-timed,  many  hundred  years  in  advance  of  the  times. 
Why  emigrate  from  a  region  but  just  reclaimed  from 
barbarism,  where  good  land  was  still  abundant?2  Per 
haps  it  was  in  reply  to  such  doubts  that  an  Illinois 
rhymester  bade  his  New  England  brother 
' '  Scan  the  opening  glories  of  the  West, 

Her  boundless  prairies  and  her  thousand  streams, 

The  swarming  millions  who  will  crowd  her  breast, 
'Mid  scenes  enchanting  as  a  poet's  dreams: 

And  then  bethink  you  of  your  own  stern  land, 
Where  ceaseless  toil  will  scarce  a  pittance  earn, 

And  gather  quickly  to  a  hopeful  band, — 

Say  parting  words, — and  to  the  westward  turn."3 

Douglas  tingled  to  his  fingers'  ends  with  the  senti 
ment  expressed  in  these  lines.    The  prospect  of  for- 

1  Lyman,  History  of  Oregon,  III,  p.  188. 

2  See  the  letter  of  a  New  England  Correspondent  in  the  Peoria  Regis 
ter,  May,  1839.  8  Peoria  Register,  June  8,  1839. 


94  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

f  eiting  this  Oregon  country, — this  greater  Northwest,— 
to  Great  Britain,  stirred  all  the  belligerent  blood  in 
his  veins.  Had  it  fallen  to  him  to  word  the  Democratic 
platform,  he  would  not  have  been  able  to  choose  a  better 
phrase  than  "re-occupation  of  Oregon. "  The  ele 
mental  jealousy  and  hatred  of  the  Western  pioneer  for 
the  claim-jumper  found  its  counterpart  in  his  hostile 
attitude  toward  Great  Britain.  He  was  equally  fearful 
lest  a  low  estimate  of  the  value  of  Oregon  should  make 
Congress  indifferent  to  its  future.  He  had  endeavored 
to  have  Congress  purchase  copies  of  Greenhow's  His 
tory  of  the  Northwest  Coast  of  North  America,  so  that 
his  colleagues  might  inform  themselves  about  this  El 
Dorado.1 

There  was,  indeed,  much  ignorance  about  Oregon, 
in  Congress  and  out.  To  the  popular  mind  Oregon  was 
the  country  drained  by  the  Columbia  Kiver,  a  vast 
region  on  the  northwest  coast.  As  defined  by  the 
authority  whom  Douglas  summoned  to  the  aid  of  his 
colleagues,  Oregon  was  the  territory  west  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  between  the  parallels  of  42°  and  54°  40' 
north  latitude.2  Treaties  between  Eussia  and  Great 
Britain,  and  between  Eussia  and  the  United  States, 
had  fixed  the  southern  boundary  of  Eussian  territory 
on  the  continent  at  54°  40' ;  a  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  Spain  had  given  the  forty-second  parallel 
as  the  northern  boundary  of  the  Spanish  possessions ; 
and  a  joint  treaty  of  occupation  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States  in  1818, — renewed  in  1827, — had 
established  a  modus  vivendi  between  the  rival  claim 
ants,  which  might  be  terminated  by  either  party  on 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  198  and  201. 

2Greenhow,  Northwest  Coast  of  North  America,  p.  200. 


MANIFEST   DESTINY  95 

twelve  months'  notice.  Meantime  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States  were  silent  competitors  for  exclu 
sive  ownership  of  the  mainland  and -islands  between 
Spanish  and  Kussian  America.  Whether  the  technical 
questions  involved  in  these  treaties  were  so  easily 
dismissed,  was  something  that  did  not  concern  the  reso 
lute  expansionist.  It  was  enough  for  him  that,  irre 
spective  of  title  derived  from  priority  of  discovery, 
the  United  States  had,  as  Greenhow  expressed  it,  a 
stronger  "national  right,"  by  virtue  of  the  process  by 
which  their  people  were  settling  the  Mississippi  Valley 
and  the  great  "West.  This  was  but  another  way  of 
stating  the  theory  of  manifest  destiny. 

No  one  knew  better  than  Douglas  that  paper  claims 
lost  half  their  force  unless  followed  up  by  vigorous 
action.  Priority  of  occupation  was  a  far  better  claim 
than  priority  of  discovery.  Hence,  the  government 
must  encourage  actual  settlement  on  the  Oregon.  Two 
isolated  bills  that  Douglas  submitted  to  Congress  are 
full  of  suggestion,  when  connected  by  this  thought: 
one  provided  for  the  establishment  of  the  territory  of 
Nebraska;1  the  other,  for  the  establishment  of  mili 
tary  posts  in  the  territories  of  Nebraska  and  Oregon, 
to  protect  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  with  New 
Mexico  and  California,  as  well  as  emigration  to 
Oregon.2  Though  neither  bill  seems  to  have  received 
serious  consideration,  both  were  to  be  forced  upon 
the  attention  of  Congress  in  after  years  by  their  per 
sistent  author. 

A  bill  had  already  been  reported  by  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  boldly  extending  the  government  of  the 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  41. 
a  Hid.,  p.  173. 


96  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

United  States  over  the  whole  disputed  area.1  Con 
servatives  in  both  parties  deprecated  such  action  as 
both  hasty  and  unwise,  in  view  of  negotiations  then 
in  progress;  but  the  Hotspurs  would  listen  to  no 
prudential  considerations.  Sentiments  such  as  those 
expressed  by  Morris  of  Pennsylvania  irritated  them 
beyond  measure.  Why  protect  this  wandering  popula 
tion  in  Oregon  ?  he  asked.  Let  them  take  care  of  them 
selves;  or  if  they  cannot  protect  themselves,  let  the 
government  defend  them  during  the  period  of  their 
infancy,  and  then  let  them  form  a  republic  of  their  own. 
He  did  not  wish  to  imperil  the  Union  by  crossing 
barriers  beyond  which  nature  had  intended  that  we 
should  not  go. 

This  frank,  if  not  cynical,  disregard  of  the  claims 
of  American  emigrants, — "wandering  and  unsettled " 
people,  Morris  had  called  them, — brought  Douglas  to 
his  feet.  Memories  of  a  lad  who  had  himself  once  been 
a  wanderer  from  the  home  of  his  fathers,  spurred  him 
to  resent  this  thinly  veiled  contempt  for  Western 
emigrants  and  the  part  which  they  were  manfully  play 
ing  in  the  development  of  the  West.  The  gentleman 
should  say  frankly,  retorted  Douglas,  that  he  is 
designs  of  dissolving  the  Union.  Consistency  should 
force  him  to  take  the  ground  that  our  Union  must  be 
dissolved  and  divided  up  into  various,  separate  repub 
lics  by  the  Alleghanies,  the  Green  and  the  White  Moun 
tains.  Besides,  to  cede  the  territory  of  Oregon  to  its 
inhabitants  would  be  tantamount  to  ceding  it  to  Great 
Britain.  He,  for  one,  would  never  yield  an  inch  of 
Oregon  either  to  Great  Britain  or  any  other  govern 
ment.  He  looked  forward  to  a  time  when  Oregon 

*  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  63. 


MANIFEST   DESTINY  97 

would  become  a  considerable  member  of  the  great 
American  family  of  States.  Wait  for  the  issue  of  the 
negotiations  now  pending?  When  had  negotiations 
not  been  pending !  Every  man  in  his  senses  knew  that 
there  was  no  hope  of  getting  the  country  by  negotia 
tion.  He  was  for  erecting  a  government  on  this  side 
of  the  Rockies,  extending  our  settlements  under  mili 
tary  protection,  and  then  establishing  the  territorial 
government  of  Oregon.  Facilitate  the  means  of  com 
munication  across  the  Eocky  Mountains,  and  let  the 
people  there  know  and  feel  that  they  are  a  part  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  and  under  its  pro 
tection  ;  that  was  his  policy. 

As  for  Great  Britain :  she  had  already  run  her  net 
work  of  possessions  and  fortifications  around  the 
United  States.  She  was  intriguing  for  California,  and 
for  Texas,  and  she  had  her  eye  on  Cuba ;  she  was  in 
sidiously  trying  to  check  the  growth  of  republican  in 
stitutions  on  this  continent  and  to  ruin  our  commerce. 
"It  therefore  becomes  us  to  put  this  nation  in  a  state 
of  defense;  and  when  we  are  told  that  this  will  lead 
to  war,  all  I  have  to  say  is  this,  violate  no  treaty  stipu 
lations,  nor  any  principle  of  the  law  of  nations;  pre 
serve  the  honor  and  integrity  of  the  country,  but,  at 
the  same  time,  assert  our  right  to  the  last  inch,  and 
then,  if  war  comes,  let  it  come.  We  may  regret  the 
necessity  which  produced  it,  but  when  it  does  come,  I 
would  administer  to  our  citizens  Hannibal's  oath  of 
eternal  enmity,  and  not  terminate  the  war  until  the 
question  was  settled  forever.  I  would  blot  out  the 
lines  on  the  map  which  now  mark  our  national  bound 
aries  on  this  continent,  and  make  the  area  of  liberty 
as  broad  as  the  continent  itself.  I  would  not  suffer 

7 


98  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

petty  rival  republics  to  grow  up  here,  engendering 
jealousy  of  each  other,  and  interfering  with  each 
other's  domestic  affairs,  and  continually  endangering 
their  peace.  I  do  not  wish  to  go  beyond  the  great 
ocean — beyond  those  boundaries  which  the  God  of 
nature  has  marked  out,  I  would  limit  myself  only  by 
that  boundary  which  is  so  clearly  defined  by  nature.  "J 

The  vehemence  of  these  words  startled  the  House, 
although  it  was  not  the  only  belligerent  speech  on  the 
Oregon  question.  Cooler  heads,  like  J.  Q.  Adams,'  who 
feared  the  effect  of  such  imprudent  utterances  falling 
upon  British  ears,  remonstrated  at  the  unseemly  haste 
with  which  the  bill  was  being  "driven  through "  the 
House,  and  counselled  with  all  the  weight  of  years 
against  the  puerility  of  provoking  war  in  this  fashion. 
But  the  most  that  could  be  accomplished  in  the  way 
of  moderation  was  an  amendment,  which  directed  the 
President  to  give  notice  of  the  termination  of  our  joint 
treaty  of  occupation  with  Great  Britain.  This  pre 
caution  proved  to  be  unnecessary,  as  the  Senate  failed 
to  act  upon  the  bill. 

No  one  expected  from  the  new  President  any  master 
ful  leadership  of  the  people  as  a  whole  or  of  his  party. 
Few  listened  with  any  marked  attention,  therefore, 
to  his  inaugural  address.  His  references  to  Texas  and 
Oregon  were  in  accord  with  the  professions  of  the 
Democratic  party,  except  possibly  at  one  point,  which 
was  not  noted  at  the  time  but  afterward  widely  com 
mented  upon.  "Our  title  to  the  country  of  the 
Oregon,"  said  he,  "is  clear  and  unquestionable."  The 
text  of  the  Baltimore  platform  read,  "Our  title  to  the 
whole,  of  the  territory  of  Oregon  is  clear  and  unques- 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  225-226. 


MANIFEST    DESTINY  99 

tionable."  Did  President  Polk  mean  to  be  ambiguous 
at  this  point!  Had  he  any  reason  to  swerve  from  the 
strict  letter  of  the  Democratic  creed? 

In  his  first  message  to  Congress,  President  Polk 
alarmed  staunch  Democrats  by  stating  that  he  had 
tried  to  compromise  our  clear  and  unquestionable 
claims,  though  he  assured  his  party  that  he  had  done 
so  only  out  of  deference  to  his  predecessor  in  office. 
Those  inherited  policies  having  led  to  naught,  he  was 
now  prepared  to  reassert  our  title  to  the  whole  of 
Oregon,  which  was  sustained  "by  irrefragable  facts 
and  arguments. ' '  He  would  therefore  recommend  that 
provision  be  made  for  terminating  the  joint  treaty  of 
occupation,  for  extending  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  over  American  citizens  in  Oregon,  and  for  pro 
tecting  emigrants  in  transit  through  the  Indian  coun 
try.  These  were  strong  measures.  They  might  lead 
to  war ;  but  the  temper  of  Congress  was  warlike ;  and 
a  group  of  Democrats  in  both  houses  was  ready  to 
take  up  the  programme  which  the  President  had  out 
lined.  "  Fifty- four  forty  or  fight "  was  the  cry  with 
which  they  sought  to  rally  the  Chauvinists  of  both 
parties  to  their  standard.  While  Cass  led  the  skirmish 
ing  line  in  the  Senate,  Douglas  forged  to  the  fore  in 
the  House.1 

It  is  good  evidence  of  the  confidence  placed  in 
Douglas  by  his  colleagues  that,  when  territorial  ques 
tions  of  more  than  ordinary  importance  were  pending, 
he  was  appointed  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories.2  If  there  was  one  division  of  legislative 

1  His  capacity  for  leadership  was  already  recognized.  His  colleagues 
conceded  that  he  was  ' '  a  man  of  large  faculties. ' '  See  Hilliard,  Politics 
and  Pen  Pictures,  p.  129.  a  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  25. 


100  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

work  in  which  he  showed  both  capacity  and  talent,  it 
was  in  the  organization  of  our  Western  domain  and  in 
its  preparation  for  statehood.  The  vision  which  daz 
zled  his  imagination  was  that  of  an  ocean-bound  re 
public;  to  that  manifest  destiny  he  had  dedicated  his 
talents,  not  by  any  self-conscious  surrender,  but  by 
the  irresistible  sweep  of  his  imagination,  always  im 
pressed  by  things  in  the  large  and  reinforced  by  con 
tact  with  actual  Western  conditions.  Finance,  the 
tariff,  and  similar  public  questions  of  a  technical 
nature,  he  was  content  to  leave  to  others;  but  those 
which  directly  concerned  the  making  of  a  continental 
republic  he  mastered  with  almost  jealous  eagerness. 
He  had  now  attained  a  position,  which,  for  fourteen 
years,  was  conceded  to  be  indisputably  his,  for  no 
sooner  had  he  entered  the  Senate  than  he  was  made 
chairman  of  a  similar  committee.  His  career  must  be 
measured  by  the  wisdom  of  his  statesmanship  in  the 
peculiar  problems  which  he  was  called  upon  to  solve 
concerning  the  public  domain.  In  this  sphere  he  laid 
claim  to  expert  .judgment;  from  him,  therefore,  much 
was  required;  but  it  was  the  fate  of  nearly  every 
territorial  question  to  be  bound  up  more  or  less  intim 
ately  with  the  slavery  question.  Upon  this  delicate 
problem  was  Douglas  also  able  to  bring  expert  testi 
mony  to  bear?  Time  only  could  tell.  Meantime,  the 
House  Committee  on  Territories  had  urgent  business 
on  hand. 

Texas  was  now  knocking  at  the  door  of  the  Union, 
and  awaited  only  a  formal  invitation  to  become  one  of 
the  family  of  States,  as  the  chairman  was  wont  to  say 
cheerily.  Ten  days  after  the  opening  of  the  session 
Douglas  reported  from  his  committee  a  joint  resolu- 


MANIFEST    DESTINY  101 

tion  for  the  admission  of  Texas,  "on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  states  in  all  respects  whatever."1 
There  was  a  certain  pleonasm  about  this  phrasing  that 
revealed  the  hand  of  the  chairman:  the  simple  state 
ment  must  be  reinforced  both  for  legal  security  and 
for  rhetorical  effect.  Six  days  later,  after  but  a  single 
speech,  the  resolution  went  to  a  third  reading  and  was 
passed  by  a  large  majority.2  Voted  upon  with  equal 
dispatch  by  the  Senate,  and  approved  by  the  President, 
the  joint  resolution  became  law,  December  29,  1845. 

While  the  belligerent  spirit  of  Congress  had  abated 
somewhat  since  the  last  session,  no  such  change  had 
passed  over  the  gentleman  from  Illinois.  No  sooner 
had  the  Texas  resolution  been  dispatched  than  he 
brought  in  a  bill  to  protect  American  settlers  in  Oregon, 
while  the  joint  treaty  of  occupation  continued.  He 
now  acquiesced,  it  is  true,  in  the  more  temperate  course 
of  first  giving  Great  Britain  twelve  months'  notice  be 
fore  terminating  this  treaty ;  but  he  was  just  as  averse 
as  ever  to  compromise  and  arbitration.  "For  one," 
said  he,  "I  never  will  be  satisfied  with  the  valley  of 
the  Columbia,  nor  with  49°,  nor  with  54°  40';  nor  will 
I  be,  while  Great  Britain  shall  hold  possession  of  one 
acre  on  the  northwest  coast  of  America.  And,  Sir,  I 
never  will  agree  to  any  arrangement  that  shall  recog 
nize  her  right  to  one  inch  of  soil  upon  the  northwest 
coast ;  and  for  this  simple  reason :  Great  Britain  never 
did  own,  she  never  did  have  a  valid  title  to  one  inch  of 
the  country."3  He  moved  that  the  question  of  title 
should  not  be  left  to  arbitration.4  His  countrymen, 
he  felt  sure,  would  never  trust  their  interests  to  Euro- 

1  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  39.  z  Ibid.,  p.  65. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  259.  *  IUd.}  p.  86. 


102  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

pean  arbitrators,  prejudiced  as  they  inevitably  would 
be  by  their  monarchical  environment.1  This  feeling 
was,  indeed,  shared  by  the  President  and  his  cabinet 
advisers. 

With  somewhat  staggering  frankness,  Douglas  laid 
bare  his  inmost  motive  for  unflinching  opposition  to 
Great  Britain.  The  value  of  Oregon  was  not  to  be 
measured  by  the  extent  of  its  seacoast  nor  by  the 
quality  of  its  soil.  "The  great  point  at  issue  between 
us  and  Great  Britain  is  for  the  freedom  of  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  for  the  trade  of  China  and  Japan,  of  the  East 
Indies,  and  for  the  maritime  ascendency  on  all  these 
waters."  Oregon  held  a  strategic  position  on  the 
Pacific,  controlling  the  overland  route  between  the 
Atlantic  and  the  Orient.  If  this  country  were  yielded  to 
Great  Britain — "this  power  which  holds  control  over 
all  the  balance  of  the  globe, " — it  would  make  her 
maritime  ascendency  complete.2 

Stripped  of  its  rhetorical  garb,  Douglas's  speech  of 
January  27,  1846,  must  be  acknowledged  to  have  a 
substratum  of  good  sense  and  the  elements  of  a  true 
prophecy.  When  it  is  recalled  that  recent  develop 
ments  in  the  Orient  have  indeed  made  the  mastery 
of  the  Pacific  one  of  the  momentous  questions  of  the 
immediate  future,  that  the  United  States  did  not  then 
possess  either  California  or  Alaska,  and  that  Oregon 
included  the  only  available  harbors  on  the  coast, — the 
pleas  of  Douglas,  which  rang  false  in  the  ears  of  his 
own  generation,  sound  prophetic  in  ours.  Yet  all  that 
he  said  was  vitiated  by  a  fallacy  which  a  glance  at  a 
map  of  the  Northwest  will  expose.  The  line  of  49° 

1  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  260. 
d.,  pp.  258-259. 


MANIFEST    DESTINY  103 

eventually  gave  to  the  United  States  Puget  Sound  with 
its  ample  harbors. 

Perhaps  it  was  the  same  uncompromising  spirit  that 
prompted  Douglas's  constituents  in  far  away  Illinois 
to  seize  the  moment  to  endorse  his  course  in  Congress. 
Early  in  January,  nineteen  delegates,  defying  the  in 
clemency  of  the  season,  met  in  convention  at  Rushville, 
and  renominated  Douglas  for  Congress  by  acclama 
tion.1  History  maintains  an  impenetrable  silence  re 
garding  these  faithful  nineteen;  it  is  enough  to  know 
that  Douglas  had  no  opposition  to  encounter  in  his 
own  bailiwick. 

When  the  joint  resolution  to  terminate  the  treaty  of 
occupation  came  to  a  vote,  the  intransigeants  en 
deavored  to  substitute  a  declaration  to  the  effect  that 
Oregon  was  no  longer  a  subject  for  negotiation  or 
compromise.  It  was  a  silly  proposition,  in  view  of 
the  circumstances,  yet  it  mustered  ten  supporters. 
Among  those  who  passed  between  the  tellers,  with 
cries  of  "54°  40'  forever, "  amid  the  laughter  of  the 
House,  were  Stephen  A.  Douglas  and  four  of  his  Illi 
nois  colleagues.2  Against  the  substitute,  one  hundred 
and  forty-six  votes  were  recorded, — an  emphatic  re 
buke,  if  only  the  ten  had  chosen  so  to  regard  it. 

While  the  House  resolution  was  under  consideration 
in  the  Senate,  it  was  noised  abroad  that  President  Polk 
still  considered  himself  free  to  compromise  with  Great 
Britain  on  the  line  of  49°.  Consternation  fell  upon  the 
Ultras.  In  the  words  of  Senator  Hannegan,  they  had 
believed  the  President  committed  to  54°  40'  in  as 

*  Illinois  State  Register,  Jan.  15,  1846. 

"Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  347;  Wheeler,  History  of  Congress,  pp. 
114-115. 


104  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

strong  language  as  that  which  makes  up  the  Holy 
Book.  As  rumor  passed  into  certainty,  the  feelings 
of  Douglas  can  be  imagined,  but  not  described.  He 
had  committed  himself,  and, — so  far  as  in  him  lay, — 
his  party,  to  the  line  of  54°  40',  in  full  confidence  that 
Polk,  party  man  that  he  was,  would  stubbornly  con 
test  every  inch  of  that  territory.  He  had  called  on  the 
dogs  of  war  in  dauntless  fashion,  and  now  to  find  "the 
standard-bearer  of  Democracy, "  "Young  Hickory," 
and  many  of  his  party,  disposed  to  compromise  on 
49°, — it  was  all  too  exasperating  for  words.  In  con 
trast  to  the  soberer  counsels  that  now  prevailed,  his 
impetuous  advocacy  of  the  whole  of  Oregon  seemed 
decidedly  boyish.  It  was  greatly  to  his  credit,  how 
ever,  that,  while  smarting  under  the  humiliation  of  the 
moment,  he  imposed  restraint  upon  his  temper  and 
indulged  in  no  bitter  language. 

Some  weeks  later,  Douglas  intimated  that  some  of 
his  party  associates  had  proved  false  to  the  professions 
of  the  Baltimore  platform.  No  Democrat,  he  thought, 
could  consistently  accept  part  of  Oregon  instead  of 
the  whole.  "Does  the  gentleman,"  asked  Seddon, 
drawing  him  out  for  the  edification  of  the  House, 
"hold  that  the  Democratic  party  is  pledged  to  54°  40'?" 
Douglas  replied  emphatically  that  he  thought  the  party 
was  thus  solemnly  pledged.  "Does  the  gentleman," 
persisted  his  interrogator,  "understand  the  President 
to  have  violated  the  Democratic  creed  in  offering  to 
compromise  on  49°?"  Douglas  replied  that  he  did 
understand  Mr.  Polk  in  his  inaugural  address  "as 
standing  up  erect  to  the  pledge  of  the  Baltimore  Con 
vention."  And  if  ever  negotiations  were  again  opened 
in  violation  of  that  pledge,  "sooner  let  his  tongue 


MANIFEST    DESTINY  105 

cleave  to  the  roof  of  Ms  mouth  than  he  would  defend 
that  party  which  should  yield  one  inch  of  Oregon.  "l 
Evidently  he  had  made  up  his  mind  to  maintain  his 
ground.  Perhaps  he  had  faint  hopes  that  the  adminis 
tration  would  not  compromise  our  claims.  He  still 
clung  tenaciously  to  his  bill  for  extending  govern 
mental  protection  over  American  citizens  in  Oregon 
and  for  encouraging  emigration  to  the  Pacific  coast; 
and  in  the  end  he  had  the  empty  satisfaction  of  seeing 
it  pass  the  House.2 

Meantime  a  war-cloud  had  been  gathering  in  the 
Southwest.  On  May  llth,  President  Polk  announced 
that  war  existed  by  act  of  Mexico.  From  this  moment 
an  amicable  settlement  with  Great  Britain  was  as 
sured.  The  most  bellicose  spirit  in  Congress  dared  not 
offer  to  prosecute  two  wars  at  the  same  time.  The 
warlike  roar  of  the  fifty-four  forty  men  subsided  into 
a  murmur  of  mild  disapprobation.  Yet  Douglas  was 
not  among  those  who  sulked  in  their  tents.  To  the 
surprise  of  his  colleagues,  he  accepted  the  situation, 
and  he  was  among  the  first  to  defend  the  President's 
course  in  the  Mexico  imbroglio. 

A  month  passed  before  Douglas  had  occasion  to  call 
at  the  White  House.  He  was  in  no  genial  temper,  for 
aside  from  personal  grievances  in  the  Oregon  affair, 
he  had  been  disappointed  in  the  President's  recent  ap 
pointments  to  office  in  Illinois.  The  President  marked 
his  unfriendly  air,  and  suspecting  the  cause,  took  pains 
to  justify  his  course  not  only  in  the  matter  of  the  ap 
pointments,  but  in  the  Oregon  affair.  If  not  convinced, 
Douglas  was  at  least  willing  to  let  bygones  be  by- 

1  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.  p.  497. 
8  Ibid.,  pp.  85,  189,  395,  690-691. 


106  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

gones.  Upon  taking  his  departure,  he  assured  the 
President  that  he  would  continue  to  support  the  ad 
ministration.  The  President  responded  graciously 
that  Mr.  Douglas  could  lead  the  Democratic  party  in 
the  House  if  he  chose  to  do  so.1 

When  President  Polk  announced  to  Congress  the 
conclusion  of  the  Oregon  treaty  with  Great  Britain, 
he  recommended  the  organization  of  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  for  the  newly  acquired  country,  at  the  earliest 
practicable  moment.  Hardly  had  the  President's  mes 
sage  been  read,  when  Douglas  offered  a  bill  of  this 
tenor,  stating  that  it  had  been  prepared  before  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  had  been  made  public.  His  com 
mittee  had  not  named  the  boundaries  of  the  new  Terri 
tory  in  the  bill,  for  obvious  reasons.  He  also  stated, 
parenthetically,  that  he  felt  so  keenly  the  humiliation 
of  writing  down  the  boundary  of  49°,  that  he  preferred 
to  leave  that  duty  to  those  who  had  consented  to  com 
promise  our  claims.  In  drafting  the  bill,  he  had  kept 
in  mind  the  provisional  government  adopted  by  the 
people  of  Oregon :  as  they  had  in  turn  borrowed  nearly 
all  the  statutes  of  Iowa,  it  was  to  be  presumed  that 
the  people  knew  their  own  needs  better  than  Congress.2 

Before  the  bill  passed  the  House  it  was  amended  at 
one  notable  point.  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  should  ever  exist  in  the  Territory,  following 
the  provision  in  the  Ordinance  of  1787  for  the  North 
west  Territory.  Presumably  Douglas  was  not  opposed 
to  this  amendment,3  though  he  voted  against  the 

1  Polk,  MS.  Diary,  Entry  for  June  17,  1846. 

2  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1203. 

"He  voted  for  a  similar  amendment  in  1844;  see  Globe,  28  Cong., 
2  Sess.,  p.  236. 


MANIFEST    DESTINY  107 

famous  Wilmot  Proviso  two  days  later.  Already 
Douglas  showed  a  disposition  to  escape  the  toils  of 
the  slavery  question  by  a  laissez  faire  policy,  which 
was  compounded  of  indifference  to  the  institution  itself 
and  of  a  strong  attachment  to  states-rights.  When 
Florida  applied  for  admission  into  the  Union  with  a 
constitution  that  forbade  the  emancipation  of  slaves 
and  permitted  the  exclusion  of  free  negroes,  he  denied 
the  right  of  Congress  to  refuse  to  receive  the  new 
State.  The  framers  of  the  Federal  Constitution  never 
intended  that  Congress  should  pass  upon  the  propriety 
or  expediency  of  each  clause  in  the  constitutions  of 
States  applying  for  admission.  The  great  diversity 
of  opinion  resulting  from  diversity  of  climate,  soil, 
pursuits,  and  customs,  made  uniformity  impossible. 
The  people  of  each  State  were  to  form  their  constitu 
tion  in  their  own  way,  subject  to  the  single  restriction 
that  it  should  be  republican  in  character.  "They  are 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  and  control  of  Congress 
during  their  infancy,  their  minority;  but  when  they 
obtain  their  majority  and  obtain  admission  into  the 
Union,  they  are  free  from  all  restraints  .  .  .  .except 
such  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  im 
posed."1 

The  absorbing  interest  of  Douglas  at  this  point  in 
his  career  is  perfectly  clear.  To  span  the  continent 
with  States  and  Territories,  to  create  an  ocean-bound 
republic,  has  often  seemed  a  gross,  materialistic  ideal. 
Has  a  nation  no  higher  destiny  than  mere  territorial 
bigness  f  Must  an  intensive  culture  with  spiritual  aims 
be  sacrificed  to  a  vulgar  exploitation  of  physical  re 
sources  1  Yet  the  ends  which  this  strenuous  Westerner 

1  Globe,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  284. 


108  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 


in  view  were  not  wholly  gross  and  materialistic. 
To  create  the  body  of  a  great  American  Commonwealth 
by  removing  barriers  to  its  continental  expansion,  so 
that  the  soul  of  Liberty  might  dwell  within  it,  was  no 
vulgar  ambition.  The  conquest  of  the  continent  must  be 
accounted  one  of  the  really  great  achievements  of  the 
century.  In  this  dramatic  exploit  Douglas  was  at  times 
an  irresponsible,  but  never  a  weak  nor  a  false  actor. 

The  session  ended  where  it  had  begun,  so  far  as 
Oregon  was  concerned.  The  Senate  failed  to  act  upon 
the  bill  to  establish  a  territorial  government;  the 
earlier  bill  to  protect  American  settlers  also  failed  of 
adoption;  and  thus  American  caravans  continued  to 
cross  the  plains  unprotected  and  ignored.  But  Con 
gress  had  annexed  a  war. 


V 

CHAPTEE  VI 

WAR  AND  POLITICS 

A  long  and  involved  diplomatic  history  preceded 
President  Polk's  simple  announcement  that  "Mexico 
has  passed  the  boundary  of  the  United  States,  has  in 
vaded  our  territory  and  shed  American  blood  upon 
American  soil."  Eightly  to  evaluate  these  words,  the 
reader  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  mission  of  John 
Slidell  to  Mexico  had  failed ;  that  the  hope  of  a  peace 
able  adjustment  of  the  Texas  boundary  and  of  Ameri 
can  claims  against  Mexico  had  vanished;  and  that 
General  Taylor  had  been  ordered  to  the  Eio  Grande  in 
disregard  of  Mexican  claims  to  that  region.  One  should 
also  know  that,  from  the  beginning  of  his  administra 
tion,  Polk  had  hoped  to  secure  from  our  bankrupt 
neighbor  the  cession  of  California  as  an  indemnity.1 
A  motive  for  forbearance  in  dealing  with  the  dis 
traught  Mexican  government  was  thus  wholly  absent 
from  the  mind  of  President  Polk. 

Such  of  these  facts  as  were  known  at  the  time, 
supplied  the  Whig  opposition  in  Congress  with  an 
abundance  of  ammunition  against  the  administration. 
Language  was  used  which  came  dangerously  near 
being  unparliamentary.  So  the  President  was  willing 
to  sacrifice  Oregon  to  prosecute  this  "illegal,  un 
righteous  and  damnable  war"  for  Texas,  sneered 
Delano.  "Where  did  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  stand 
now?  Was  he  still  in  favor  of  61?"  This  sally  brought 

1  See  Garrison,  Westward  Extension,  Ch.  14. 

109 


110  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

Douglas  to  his  feet  and  elicited  one  of  his  cleverest 
extempore  speeches.  He  believed  that  such  words 
as  the  gentleman  had  uttered  could  come  only  from 
one  who  desired  defeat  for  our  arms.  "All  who, 
after  war  is  declared,  condemn  the  justice  of  our  cause, 
are  traitors  in  their  hearts.  And  would  to  God  that 
they  would  commit  some  overt  act  for  which  they  could 
be  dealt  with  according  to  their  deserts."  Patriots 
might  differ  as  to  the  expediency  of  entering  upon  war ; 
but  duty  and  honor  forbade  divided  counsels  after 
American  blood  had  been  shed  on  American  soil.  Had 
he  foreseen  the  extraordinary  turn  of  the  discussion, 
he  assured  his  auditors,  he  could  have  presented  "a 
catalogue  of  aggressions  and  insults;  of  outrages  on 
our  national  flag — on  persons  and  property  of  our 
citizens ;  of  the  violation  of  treaty  stipulations,  and  the 
murder,  robbery,  and  imprisonment  of  our  country 
men."  These  were  all  anterior  to  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  and  perhaps  alone  would  have  justified  a  dec 
laration  of  war;  but  "magnanimity  and  forbearance 
toward  a  weak  and  imbecile  neighbor"  prevented  hos 
tilities.  The  recent  outrages  left  the  country  no  choice 
but  war.  The  invasion  of  the  country  was  the  last  of 
the  cumulative  causes  for  war. 

But  was  the  invaded  territory  properly  "our  coun 
try"!  This  was  the  crux  of  the  whole  matter.  On  this 
point  Douglas  was  equally  confident  and  explicit. 
Waiving  the  claims  which  the  treaty  of  San  Ildefonso 
may  have  given  to  the  boundary  of  the  Eio  Grande,  he 
rested  the  whole  case  upon  "an  immutable  principle" — 
the  Eepublic  of  Texas  held  the  country  on  the  left  bank 
of  that  river  by  virtue  of  a  successful  revolution.  The 
United  States  had  received  Texas  as  a  State  with  all 


WAR   AND   POLITICS  111 

her  territory,  and  had  no  right  to  surrender  any  por 
tion  of  it.1 

The  evidence  which  Douglas  presented  to  confirm 
these  claims  is  highly  interesting.  The  right  of  Texas 
to  have  and  to  hold  the  territory  from  the  Nueces  to 
the  Eio  Grande  was,  in  his  opinion,  based  incontro- 
vertibly  on  the  treaty  made  by  Santa  Anna  after  the 
battle  of  San  Jacinto,  which  acknowledged  the  inde 
pendence  of  Texas  and  recognized  the  Eio  Grande  as 
its  boundary.  To  an  inquiry  whether  the  treaty  was 
ever  ratified  by  the  government  of  Mexico,  Douglas 
replied  that  he  was  not  aware  that  it  had  been  ratified 
by  anyone  except  Santa  Anna,  for  the  very  good 
reason  that  he  was  the  government  at  the  time.  "Has 
not  that  treaty  with  Santa  Anna  been  since  discarded 
by  the  Mexican  government?"  asked  the  venerable 
J.  Q.  Adams.  "I  presume  it  has,"  replied  Douglas, 
"for  I  am  not  aware  of  any  treaty  or  compact  which 
that  government  ever  entered  into  that  has  not  either 
been  violated  or  repudiated  by  them  afterwards. ' '  But 
Santa  Anna,  as  recognized  dictator,  was  the  de  facto 
government,  and  the  acts  of  a  de  facto  government  were 
binding  on  the  nation  as  against  foreign  nations.  "It 
is  immaterial,  therefore,  whether  Mexico  has  or  has 
not  since  repudiated  Santa  Anna's  treaty  with  Texas. 
It  was  executed  at  the  time  by  competent  authority. 
She  availed  herself  of  all  its  benefits."  Forthwith 
Texas  established  counties  beyond  the  Nueces,  even  to 
the  Eio  Grande,  and  extended  her  jurisdiction  over 
that  region,  while  in  a  later  armistice  Mexico  recog 
nized  the  Eio  Grande  as  the  boundary.  It  was  in  the 
clear  light  of  these  facts  that  Congress  had  passed 

1  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  815. 


112  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

an  act  extending  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States 
over  the  country  between  the  Kio  Grande  and  the 
Nueces — the  very  country  in  which  American  soldiers 
had  been  slain  by  an  invading  force. 

All  things  considered,  Douglas's  line  of  argument 
was  as  well  sustained  as  any  presented  by  the  sup 
porters  of  the  war.  The  absence  of  any  citations  to 
substantiate  important  points  was  of  course  due  to 
the  impromptu  nature  of  the  speech.  Two  years  later,1 
in  a  carefully  prepared  speech  constructed  on  much 
the  same  principles,  he  made  good  these  omissions,  but 
without  adding  much,  it  must  be  confessed,  to  the 
strength  of  his  argument.  The  chain  of  evidence  was 
in  fact  no  stronger  than  its  weakest  link,  which  was 
the  so-called  treaty  of  Santa  Anna  with  the  President 
of  the  Republic  of  Texas.  Nowhere  in  the  articles, 
public  or  secret,  is  there  an  express  recognition  of  the 
independence  of  the  Republic,  nor  of  the  boundary. 
Santa  Anna  simply  pledged  himself  to  do  his  utmost 
to  bring  about  a  recognition  of  independence,  and  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  claims  of  Texas  to  the  Rio 
Grande  as  a  boundary.2  Did  Douglas  misinterpret 
these  articles,  or  did  he  chance  upon  an  unauthentic 
version  of  them?  In  the  subsequent  speech  to  which 
reference  has  been  made,  he  cited  specific  articles 
which  supported  his  contention.  These  citations  do 
not  tally  with  either  the  public  or  secret  treaty.  It 
may  be  doubted  whether  the  secret  articles  were  gener 
ally  known  at  this  time;  but  the  open  treaty  had  been 
published  in  Niles'  Register  correctly,  and  had  been 
cited  by  President  Polk.3  The  inference  would  seem 

1  February  1,  J848. 

'See  Bancroft's  History  of  Mexico, 'pp.  173-174  note. 

•Niles'  Register,  Vol.  50,  p.  336. 


WAR   AND    POLITICS  113 

to  be  that  Douglas  unwittingly  used  an  unauthenticated 
version,  and  found  in  it  a  conclusive  argument  for  the 
claim  of  Texas  to  the  disputed  territory. 

Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  had  followed  Douglas  with 
the  keenest  interest,  for  with  all  the  vigor  which  his 
declining  strength  permitted,  he  had  denounced  the 
war  as  an  aggression  upon  a  weaker  neighbor.  He 
had  repeatedly  interrupted  Douglas,  so  that  the  latter 
almost  insensibly  addressed  his  remarks  to  him.  They 
presented  a  striking  contrast :  the  feeble,  old  man  and 
the  ardent,  young  Westerner.  When  Douglas  alluded 
to  the  statement  of  Mr.  Adams  in  1819,  that  '  *  our  title 
to  the  Kio  del  Norte  is  as  clear  as  to  the  island  of  New 
Orleans, "  the  old  man  replied  testily,  "I  never  said 
that  our  title  was  good  to  the  Eio  del  Norte  from  its 
mouth  to  its  source/'  But  the  gentleman  surely  did 
claim  the  Eio  del  Norte  in  general  terms  as  the 
boundary  under  the  Louisiana  treaty,  persisted  Doug 
las.  "I  have  the  official  evidence  over  his  own  signa 
ture  ....  It  is  his  celebrated  dispatch  to  Don  Onis,  the 
Spanish  minister."  "I  wrote  that  dispatch  as  Secre 
tary  of  State,"  responded  Mr.  Adams,  somewhat  dis 
concerted  by  evidence  from  his  own  pen,  "and  en 
deavored  to  make  out  the  best  case  I  could  for  my  own 
country,  as  it  was  my  duty;  but  I  utterly  deny  that 
I  claimed  the  Eio  del  Norte  in  its  whole  extent.  I  only 
claimed  it  as  the  line  a  short  distance  up,  and  then 
took  a  line  northward,  some  distance  from  the  river." 
"I  have  heard  of  this  line  to  which  the  gentleman 
refers,"  replied  Douglas.  "It  followed  a  river  near 
the  gorge  of  the  mountains,  certainly  more  than  a 
hundred  miles  above  Matamoras.  Consequently,  taking 
the  gentleman  on  his  own  claim,  the  position  occupied 


114  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

by  General  Taylor  opposite  Matamoras,  and  every 
inch  of  the  ground  upon  which  an  American  soldier 
has  planted  his  foot,  were  clearly  within  our  own  terri 
tory  as  claimed  by  him  in  1819. ' n 

It  seemed  to  an  eyewitness  of  this  encounter  that 
the  veteran  statesman  was  decidedly  worsted.  "The 
House  was  divided  between  admiration  for  the  new 
actor  on  the  great  stage  of  national  affairs  and  rever 
ence  for  the  retiring  chief,"  wrote  a  friend  in  after 
years,  with  more  loyalty  than  accuracy.2  The  Whig 
side  of  the  chamber  was  certainly  in  no  mood  to  waste 
admiration  on  any  Democrat  who  defended  "Polk  the 
Mendacious. ' ' 

Hardly  had  the  war  begun  when  there  was  a  wild 
scramble  among  Democrats  for  military  office.  It 
seemed  to  the  distressed  President  as  though  every 
Democratic  civilian  became  an  applicant  for  some  com 
mission.  Particularly  embarrassing  was  the  passion 
for  office  that  seized  upon  members  of  Congress.  Even 
Douglas  felt  the  spark  of  military  genius  kindling 
within  him.  His  friends,  too,  were  convinced  that  he 
possessed  qualities  which  would  make  him  an  intrepid 
leader  and  a  tactician  of  no  mean  order.  The  entire 
Illinois  delegation  united  to  urge  his  appointment  as 
Brigadier  Major  of  the  Illinois  volunteers.  Happily 
for  the  President,  his  course  in  this  instance  was  clearly 
marked  out  by  a  law,  which  required  him  to  select  only 
officers  already  in  command  of  State  militia.3  Douglas 
was  keenly  disappointed.  He  even  presented  himself 
in  person  to  overrule  the  President's  objection.  The 

1  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  816-817. 

2  Forney,  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  I,  p.  52. 

3  Polk,  MS.  Diary,  Entry  for  June  22,  1846, 


WAK   AND   POLITICS  115 

President  was  kind,  but  firm.  He  advised  Douglas  to 
withdraw  his  application.  In  his  judgment,  Mr. 
Douglas  could  best  serve  his  country  in  Congress. 
Shortly  afterward  Douglas  sent  a  letter  to  the  Presi 
dent,  withdrawing  his  application — "like  a  sensible 
man,"  commented  the  relieved  Executive.1  It  is  not 
likely  that  the  army  lost  a  great  commander  by  this 
decision. 

In  a  State  like  Illinois,  which  had  been  staunchly 
Democratic  for  many  years,  elections  during  a  war 
waged  by  a  Democratic  administration  were  not  likely 
to  yield  any  surprises.  There  was  perhaps  even  less 
doubt  of  the  result  of  the  election  in  the  Fifth  Con 
gressional  District.  By  the  admission  of  his  opponents 
Douglas  was  stronger  than  he  had  been  before.2  More 
over,  the  war  was  popular  in  the  counties  upon  whose 
support  he  had  counted  in  other  years.  He  had  com 
mitted  no  act  for  which  he  desired  general  oblivion; 
his  warlike  utterances  on  Oregon,  which  had  cost  him 
some  humiliation  at  Washington,  so  far  from  forfeit 
ing  the  confidence  of  his  followers,  seem  rather  to  have 
enhanced  his  popularity.  Douglas  carried  every  county 
in  his  district  but  one,  and  nearly  all  by  handsome 
majorities.  He  had  been  first  sent  to  Congress  by  a 
majority  over  Browning  of  less  than  five  hundred 
votes ;  in  the  following  canvass  he  had  tripled  his  ma 
jority;  and  now  he  was  returned  to  Congress  by  a 
majority  of  over  twenty-seven  hundred  votes.3  He 

1Polk,  MS.  Diary,  Entry  for  June  23,  1846. 

2  Even  the  Alton  Telegraph,  a  Whig  paper,  and  in  times  past  no  ad 
mirer  of  Douglas,   spoke    (May   30,   1846)    of  the    "most   admirable" 
speech  of  Judge  Douglas  in  defense  of  the  Mexican  War   (May  13th). 
8  The  official  returns  were  as  follows : 

Douglas    9629 

Vandeventer    6864 

Wilson    .  395 


116  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

had  every  reason  to  feel  gratified  with  this  showing, 
even  though  some  of  his  friends  were  winning  military 
glory  on  Mexican  battlefields.  So  long  as  he  remained 
content  with  his  seat  in  the  House,  there  were  no 
clouds  in  his  political  firmament.  Not  even  the  agita 
tion  of  Abolitionists  and  Native  Americans  need 
cause  him  any  anxiety,  for  the  latter  were  wholly  a 
negligible  political  quantity  and  the  former  practi 
cally  so.1  Everywhere  but  in  the  Seventh  District, 
from  which  Lincoln  was  returned,  Democratic  Con 
gressmen  were  chosen ;  and  to  make  the  triumph  com 
plete,  a  Democratic  State  ticket  was  elected  and  a 
Democratic  General  Assembly  again  assured. 

Early  in  the  fall,  on  his  return  from  a  Southern  trip, 
Douglas  called  upon  the  President  in  Washington.  He 
was  cordially  welcomed,  and  not  a  little  flattered  by 
Folk's  readiness  to  talk  over  the  political  situation 
before  Congress  met.2  Evidently  his  support  was 
earnestly  desired  for  the  contemplated  policies  of  the 
administration.  It  was  needed,  as  events  proved. 
No  sooner  was  Congress  assembled  than  the  opposi 
tion  charged  Polk  with  having  exceeded  his  authority 
in  organizing  governments  in  the  territory  wrested 
from  Mexico.  Douglas  sprang  at  once  to  the  Presi 
dent's  defense.  He  would  not  presume  to  speak  with 
authority  in  the  matter,  but  an  examination  of  the 
accessible  official  papers  had  convinced  him  that  the 
course  of  the  President  and  of  the  commanders  of 
the  army  was  altogether  defensible.  "In  conducting 
the  war,  conquest  was  effected,  and  the  right  growing 

1  The  Abolitionist  candidate  in  1846  showed  no  marked  gain  over  the 
candidate  in  1844;  Native  Americanism  had  no  candidates  in  the  field. 

JPolk,  MS.  Diary,  Entry  for  September  4,  1846. 


WAR   AND    POLITICS  117 

out  of  conquest  was  to  govern  the  subdued  provinces 
in  a  temporary  and  provisional  manner,  until  the  home 
government  should  establish  a  government  in  another 
form. ' n  And  more  to  this  effect,  uttered  in  the  heated 
language  of  righteous  indignation. 

For  thus  throwing  himself  into  the  breach,  Douglas 
was  rewarded  by  further  confidences.  Before  Polk 
replied  to  the  resolution  of  inquiry  which  the  House 
had  voted,  he  summoned  Douglas  and  a  colleague  to 
the  White  House,  to  acquaint  them  with  the  contents 
of  his  message  and  with  the  documents  which  would 
accompany  it,  so  l '  that  they  might  be  prepared  to  meet 
any  attacks."  And  again,  with  four  other  members 
of  the  House,  Douglas  was  asked  to  advise  the  Presi 
dent  in  the  matter  of  appointing  Colonel  Benton  to  the 
office  of  lieutenant-general  in  command  of  the  armies 
in  the  field.  At  the  same  time,  the  President  laid  before 
them  his  project  for  an  appropriation  of  two  millions 
to  purchase  peace ;  i.  e.  to  secure  a  cession  of  terri 
tory  from  Mexico.  With  one  accord  Douglas  and  his 
companions  advised  the  President  not  to  press  Ben- 
ton's  appointment,  but  all  agreed  that  the  desired 
appropriation  should  be  pushed  through  Congress 
with  all  possible  speed.2  Yet  all  knew  that  such  a  bill 
must  run  the  gauntlet  of  amendment  by  those  who  had 
attached  the  Wilmot  Proviso  to  the  two-million-dollar 
bill  of  the  last  session. 

While  Douglas  was  thus  rising  rapidly  to  the  leader 
ship  of  his  party  in  the  House,  the  Legislature  of  his 
State  promoted  him  to  the  Senate.  For  six  years  he 

1  Globe,  29  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  13-14. 

2  Polk,  MS.  Diary,  Entry  for  December  14,  1846. 


118  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

had  been  a  potential  candidate  for  the  office,  despite 
his  comparative  youth.1  What  transpired  in  the  Demo 
cratic  caucus  which  named  him  as  the  candidate  of  the 
party,  history  does  not  record.  That  there  was  jeal 
ousy  on  the  part  of  older  men,  much  heart-burning 
among  the  younger  aspirants,  and  bargaining  on  all 
sides,  may  be  inferred  from  an  incident  recorded  in 
Folk's  diary.2  Soon  after  his  election,  Douglas  repaired 
to  the  President's  office  to  urge  the  appointment  of 
Eichard  M.  Young  of  Illinois  as  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office.  This  was  not  the  first  time  that 
Douglas  had  urged  the  appointment,  it  would  seem. 
The  President  now  inquired  of  Senator  Breese,  who 
had  accompanied  Douglas  and  seconded  his  request, 
whether  the  appointment  would  be  satisfactory  to  the 
Illinois  delegation.  Both  replied  that  it  would,  if  Mr. 
Hoge,  a  member  of  the  present  Congress,  who  had 
been  recommended  at  the  last  session,  could  not  be 
appointed.  The  President  repeated  his  decision  not 
to  appoint  members  of  Congress  to  office,  except  in 
special  cases,  and  suggested  another  candidate. 
Neither  Douglas  nor  Breese  would  consent.  Polk  then 
spoke  of  a  diplomatic  charge  for  Young,  but  they 
would  not  hear  of  it. 

Next  morning  Douglas  returned  to  the  attack,  and 
the  President,  under  pressure,  sent  the  nomination 
of  Young  to  the  Senate ;  before  five  o'clock  of  the  same 
day,  Polk  was  surprised  to  receive  a  notification  from 
the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  that  the  nomination  had 
been  confirmed.  The  President  was  a  good  deal  mysti- 

1  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  390. 

2  Polk,  MS.  Diary,  Entry  for  January  6,  1847. 


WAR  AND   POLITICS  119 

fied  by  this  unusual  promptness,  until  three  members  of 
the  Illinois  delegation  called  some  hours  later,  in  a  state 
of  great  excitement,  saying  that  Douglas  and  Breese 
had  taken  advantage  of  them.  They  had  no  knowledge 
that  Young's  nomination  was  being  pressed,  and  Mc- 
Clernand  in  high  dudgeon  intimated  that  this  was  all 
a  bargain  between  Young  and  the  two  Senators. 
Douglas  and  Breese  had  sought  to  prevent  Young  from 
contesting  their  seats  in  the  Senate,  by  securing  a  fat 
office  for  him.  All  this  is  ex  parte  evidence  against 
Senator  Douglas;  but  there  is  nothing  intrinsically 
improbable  in  the  story.  In  these  latter  days,  so  com 
paratively  innocent  a  deal  would  pass  without  comment. 
Immediately  upon  taking  his  seat  in  the  Senate, 
Douglas  was  appointed  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories.  It  was  then  a  position  of  the  utmost 
importance,  for  every  question  of  territorial  organiza 
tion  touched  the  peculiar  interests  of  the  South.  The 
varying  currents  of  public  opinion  crossed  in  this 
committee.  Senator  Bright  of  Indiana  is  well  de 
scribed  by  the  hackneyed  and  often  misapplied  desig 
nation,  a  Northern  Democrat  with  Southern  prin 
ciples;  Butler  was  Calhoun's  colleague;  Clayton  of 
Delaware  was  a  Whig  and  represented  a  border  State 
which  was  vacillating  between  slavery  and  freedom; 
while  Davis  was  a  Massachusetts  Whig.  Douglas  was 
placed,  as  it  appeared,  in  the  very  storm  center  of  poli 
tics,  where  his  well-known  fighting  qualities  would  be 
in  demand.  It  was  not  so  clear  to  those  who  knew 
him,  that  he  possessed  the  not  less  needful  qualities 
of  patience  and  tact  for  occasions  when  battles  are  not 
won  by  fighting.  Still,  life  at  the  capital  had  smoothed 
his  many  little  asperities  of  manner.  He  had  learned 


120  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

to  conform  to  the  requirements  of  a  social  etiquette 
to  which  he  had  been  a  stranger;  yet  without  losing 
the  heartiness  of  manner  and  genial  companionable- 
ness  with  all  men  which  was,  indeed,  his  greatest  per 
sonal  charm.  His  genuineness  and  large-hearted  regard 
for  his  friends  grappled  them  to  him  and  won  respect 
even  from  those  who  were  not  of  his  political  faith.1 

An  incident  at  the  very  outset  of  his  career  in  the 
Senate,  betrayed  some  little  lack  of  self-restraint. 
When  Senator  Cass  introduced  the  so-called  Ten  Eegi- 
ments  bill,  Calhoun  asked  that  its  consideration  might 
be  postponed,  in  order  to  give  him  opportunity  to  dis 
cuss  resolutions  on  the  prospective  annexation  of 
Mexico.  Cass  was  disposed  to  yield  for  courtesy's 
sake;  but  Douglas  resented  the  interruption.  He 
failed  to  see  why  public  business  should  be  suspended 
in  order  to  discuss  abstract  propositions.  He  believed 
that  this  doctrine  of  courtesy  was  being  carried  to 
great  lengths.2  Evidently  the  young  Senator,  fresh 
from  the  brisk  atmosphere  of  the  House,  was  restive 
under  the  conventional  restraints  of  the  more  sedate 
Senate.  He  had  not  yet  become  acclimated. 

Douglas  made  his  first  formal  speech  in  the  Senate 
on  February  1,  1848.  Despite  his  disclaimers,  he  had 
evidently  made  careful  preparation,  for  his  desk  was 
strewn  with  books  and  he  referred  frequently  to  his 
authorities.  The  Ten  Eegiments  bill  was  known  to  be 
a  measure  of  the  administration ;  and  for  this  reason, 
if  for  no  other,  it  was  bitterly  opposed.  The  time 
seemed  opportune  for  a  vindication  of  the  President's 
policy.  Douglas  indignantly  repelled  the  charge  that 

1  Forney,  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  I,  pp.  146-147. 
8  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  92. 


WAR  AND   POLITICS  121 

the  war  had  from  the  outset  been  a  war  of  conquest. 
"It  is  a  war  of  self-defense,  forced  upon  us  by  our 
enemy,  and  prosecuted  on  our  part  in  vindication  of 
our  honor,  and  the  integrity  of  our  territory.  The 
enemy  invaded  our  territory,  and  we  repelled  the  in 
vasion,  and  demanded  satisfaction  for  all  our  griev 
ances.  In  order  to  compel  Mexico  to  do  us  justice,  it 
was  necessary  to  follow  her  retreating  armies  into  her 
territory  ....  and  inasmuch  as  it  was  certain  that  she 
was  unable  to  make  indemnity  in  money,  we  must 
necessarily  take  it  in  land.  Conquest  was  not  the 
motive  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war;  satisfaction, 
indemnity,  security,  was  the  motive — conquest  and 
territory  the  means."1 

Once  again  Douglas  reviewed  the  origin  of  the  war 
re-arguing  the  case  for  the  administration.  If  the 
arguments  employed  were  now  well-worn,  they  were 
repeated  with  an  incisiveness  that  took  away  much 
of  their  staleness.  This  speech  must  be  understood 
as  complementary  to  that  which  he  had  made  in  the 
House  at  the  opening  of  hostilities.  But  he  had  not 
changed  his  point  of  view,  nor  moderated  his  conten 
tions.  Time  seemed  to  have  served  only  to  make  him 
surer  of  his  evidence.  Douglas  exhibited  throughout 
his  most  conspicuous  excellencies  and  his  most  glaring 
defects.  From  first  to  last  he  was  an  attorney,  making 
the  best  possible  defense  of  his  client.  Nothing  could 
excel  his  adroit  selection  of  evidence,  and  his  disposi 
tion  and  massing  of  telling  testimony.  Form  and  pre 
sentation  were  admirably  calculated  to  disarm  and 
convince.  It  goes  without  saying  that  Douglas's  men 
tal  attitude  was  the  opposite  of  the  scientific  and 

1  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  222. 


122  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

historic  spirit.  Having  a  proposition  to  establish,  he 
cared  only  for  pertinent  evidence.  He  rarely  inquired 
into  the  character  of  the  authorities  from  which  he 
culled  his  data. 

That  this  attitude  of  mind  and  these  unscholarly 
habits  often  were  his  undoing,  was  inevitable.  He  was 
often  betrayed  by  fallacies  and  hasty  inferences.  The 
speech  before  us  illustrates  this  lamentable  mental 
defect.  With  the  utmost  assurance  Douglas  pointed 
out  that  Texas  had  actually  extended  her  jurisdiction 
over  the  debatable  land  between  the  Nueces  and  the 
Eio  Grande,  fixing  by  law  the  times  of  holding  court 
in  the  counties  of  San  Patricio  and  Bexar.  This  was 
in  the  year  1838.  The  conclusion  was  almost  unavoid 
able  that  when  Texas  came  into  the  Union,  her  actual 
sovereignty  extended  to  the  Eio  Grande.  But  further 
examination  would  have  shown  Douglas,  that  the  only 
inhabited  portion  of  the  so-called  counties  were  the 
towns  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Nueces :  beyond,  lay  a 
waste  which  was  still  claimed  by  Mexico.  Was  he  mis 
informed,  or  had  he  hastily  selected  the  usable  portion 
of  the  evidence?  Once  again,  in  his  eagerness  to  show 
that  Mexico,  so  recently  as  1842,  had  tacitly  recognized 
the  Eio  Grande  as  a  boundary  in  her  military  opera 
tions,  he  controverted  his  own  argument  that  Texas 
had  been  in  undisturbed  possession  of  the  country. 
He  corroborated  the  conviction  of  those  who  from  the 
first  had  asserted  that,  in  annexing  Texas,  the  United 
States  had  annexed  a  war.  This  from  the  man  who 
had  formerly  declared  that  the  danger  of  war  was 
remote,  because  there  had  been  no  war  between  Mexico 
and  Texas  for  nine  years ! 

Before  a  vote  could  be  reached  on  the  Ten  Eegi- 


WAR  AND   POLITICS  123 

ments  bill,  the  draft  of  the  Mexican  treaty  had  been 
sent  to  the  Senate.  What  transpired  in  executive  ses 
sion  and  what  part  Donglas  sustained  in  the  discus 
sion  of  the  treaty,  may  be  guessed  pretty  accurately 
by  his  later  admissions.  He  was  one  of  an  aggressive 
minority  who  stoutly  opposed  the  provision  of  the  fifth 
article  of  the  treaty,  which  was  to  this  effect:  "The 
boundary-line  established  by  this  article  shall  be  relig 
iously  respected  by  each  of  the  two  republics,  and  no 
change  shall  ever  be  made  therein  except  by  the  ex 
press  and  free  consent  of  both  nations,  lawfully  given 
by  the  general  government  of  each,  in  conformity  with 
its  own  Constitution. ' '  This  statement  was  deemed  a 
humiliating  avowal  that  the  United  States  had  wrong 
fully  warred  upon  Mexico,  and  a  solemn  pledge  that 
we  would  never  repeat  the  offense.  The  obvious  retort 
was  that  certain  consciences  now  seemed  hypersensi 
tive  about  the  war.  However  that  may  be,  eleven  votes 
were  recorded  for  conscience '  sake  against  the  odious 
article. 

This  was  not  the  only  ground  of  complaint.  Douglas 
afterward  stated  the  feeling  of  the  minority  in  this 
way:  "It  violated  a  great  principle  of  public  policy 
in  relation  to  this  continent.  It  pledges  the  faith  of 
this  Eepublic  that  our  successors  shall  not  do  that 
which  duty  to  the  interests  and  honor  of  the  country, 
in  the  progress  of  events,  may  compel  them  to  do." 
But  he  hastened  to  add  that  he  meditated  no  aggres 
sion  upon  Mexico.  In  short,  the  Eepublic, — such  was 
his  hardly-concealed  thought, — might  again  fall  out 
with  its  imbecile  neighbor  and  feel  called  upon  to  ad 
minister  punishment  by  demanding  indemnity.  There 


124  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

was  no  knowing  what  "the  progress  of  events'7  might 
make  a  national  necessity.1 

As  yet  Douglas  had  contributed  nothing  to  the  solu 
tion  of  the  problem  which  lurked  behind  the  Mexican 
cession;  nor  had  he  tried  his  hand  at  making  party 
opinion  on  new  issues.  He  seemed  to  have  no  con 
cern  beyond  the  concrete  business  on  the  calendar  of 
the  Senate.  He  classed  all  anticipatory  discussion 
of  future  issues  as  idle  abstraction.  Had  he  no  im 
agination?  Had  he  no  eyes  to  see  beyond  the  object 
immediately  within  his  field  of  vision?  Had  his  alert 
intelligence  suddenly  become  myopic? 

On  the  subject  of  Abolitionism,  at  least,  he  had  posi 
tive  convictions,  which  he  did  not  hesitate  to  express. 
An  exciting  episode  in  the  Senate  drew  from  him  a 
sharp  arraignment  of  the  extreme  factions  North  and 
South.  An  acrimonious  debate  had  been  precipitated 
by  a  bill  introduced  by  that  fervid  champion  of  Aboli 
tionism,  Senator  Hale  of  New  Hampshire,  which  pur 
ported  to  protect  property  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
against  rioters.  A  recent  attack  upon  the  office  of  the 
National  Era,  the  organ  of  Abolitionism,  at  the  capital, 
as  everyone  understood,  inspired  the  bill,  and  inevit 
ably  formed  the  real  subject  of  debate.2  It  was  in  the 
heated  colloquy  that  ensued  that  Senator  Foote  of 
Mississippi  earned  his  sobriquet  of  "Hangman,"  by 
inviting  Hale  to  visit  Mississippi  and  to  "grace  one  of 
the  tallest  trees  of  the  forest,  with  a  rope  around  his 
neck."  Calhoun,  too,  was  excited  beyond  his  wont, 
declaring  that  he  would  as  soon  argue  with  a  maniac 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  172. 

"The  debate  is  reported  in  the  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp. 
500  ff. 


WAR   AND   POLITICS  125 

from  Bedlam  as  with  the  Senator  from  New  Hamp 
shire. 

With  cool  audacity  and  perfect  self-possession, 
Douglas  undertook  to  recall  the  Senate  to  its  wonted 
composure, — a  service  not  likely  to  be  graciously  re 
ceived  by  the  aggrieved  parties.  Douglas  remarked 
sarcastically  that  Southern  gentlemen  had  effected 
just  what  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  as  presi 
dential  candidate  of  the  Abolitionists,  had  desired: 
they  had  unquestionably  doubled  his  vote  in  the  free 
States.  The  invitation  of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi 
alone  was  worth  not  less  than  ten  thousand  votes  to 
the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire.  "It  is  the  speeches 
of  Southern  men,  representing  slave  States,  going  to 
an  extreme,  breathing  a  fanaticism  as  wild  and  as 
reckless  as  that  of  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire, 
which  creates  Abolitionism  in  the  North. "  These  were 
hardly  the  words  of  the  traditional  peacemaker.  Sen 
ator  Foote  was  again  upon  his  feet  breathing  out 
imprecations.  "I  must  again  congratulate  the  Senator 
from  New  Hampshire,"  resumed  Douglas,  "on  the 
accession  of  the  five  thousand  votes!"  Again  a  col 
loquy  ensued.  Calhoun  declared  Douglas's  course  "at 
least  as  offensive  as  that  of  the  Senator  from  New 
Hampshire."  Douglas  was  then  permitted  to  speak 
uninterruptedly.  He  assured  his  Southern  colleagues 
that,  as  one  not  altogether  unacquainted  with  life  in  the 
slave  States,  he  appreciated  their  indignation  against 
Abolitionists  and  shared  it ;  but  as  he  had  no  sympathy 
for  Abolitionism,  he  also  had  none  for  that  extreme 
course  of  Southern  gentlemen  which  was  akin  to  Aboli 
tionism.  "We  stand  up  for  all  your  constitutional 
rights,  in  which  we  will  protect  you  to  the  last.  . . .  But 


126  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

we  protest  against  being  made  instruments — puppets — 
in  this  slavery  excitement,  which  can  operate  only  to 
your  interest  and  the  building  up  of  those  who  wish  to 
put  you  down."1 

Dignified  silence,  however,  was  the  last  thing  to  be 
expected  from  the  peppery  gentleman  from  Missis 
sippi.  He  must  speak  "the  language  of  just  indigna 
tion."  He  gladly  testified  to  the  consideration  with 
which  Douglas  was  wont  to  treat  the  South,  but  he 
warned  the  young  Senator  from  Illinois  that  the  old 
adage — "in  medio  tutissimus  ibis" — might  lead  him 
astray.  He  might  think  to  reach  the  goal  of  his  am 
bitions  by  keeping  clear  of  the  two  leading  factions 
and  by  identifying  himself  with  the  masses,  but  he  was 
grievously  mistaken. 

The  reply  of  Douglas  was  dignified  and  guarded. 
He  would  not  speak  for  or  against  slavery.  The  in 
stitution  was  local  and  sustained  by  local  opinion ;  by 
local  sentiment  it  would  stand  or  fall.  "In  the  North 
it  is  not  expected  that  we  should  take  the  position  that 
slavery  is  a  positive  good — a  positive  blessing.  If  we 
did  assume  such  a  position,  it  would  be  a  very  pertinent 
inquiry,  Why  do  you  not  adopt  this  institution?  We 
have  moulded  our  institutions  at  the  North  as  we  have 
thought  proper ;  and  now  we  say  to  you  of  the  South, 
if  slavery  be  a  blessing,  it  is  your  blessing;  if  it  be 
a  curse,  it  is  your  curse;  enjoy  it — on  you  rest  all 
the  responsibility !  We  are  prepared  to  aid  you  in  the 
maintenance  of  all  your  constitutional  rights;  and  I 
apprehend  that  no  man,  South  or  North,  has  shown 
more  consistently  a  disposition  to  do  so  than  myself. . . . 
But  I  claim  the  privilege  of  pointing  out  to  you  how 
you  give  strength  and  encouragement  to  the  Aboli 
tionists  of  the  North."2 

1  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  506.        *I&id,  p.  507. 


CHAPTEE  VII 

THE  MEXICAN  CESSION 

When  Douglas  entered  Washington  in  the  fall  of 
1847,  as  junior  Senator  from  Illinois,  our  troops  had 
occupied  the  city  of  Mexico  and  negotiations  for  peace 
were  well  under  way.  Perplexing  problems  awaited 
Congress.  President  Polk  sternly  reminded  the  two 
Houses  that  peace  must  bring  indemnity  for  the  past 
and  security  for  the  future,  and  that  the  only  indemnity 
which  Mexico  could  offer  would  be  a  cession  of  terri 
tory.  Unwittingly,  he  gave  the  signal  for  another 
bitter  controversy,  for  in  the  state  of  public  opinion 
at  that  moment,  every  accession  of  territory  was  bound 
to  raise  the  question  of  the  extension  of  slavery.  The 
country  was  on  the  eve  of  another  presidential  election. 
Would  the  administration  which  had  precipitated  the 
war,  prove  itself  equal  to  the  legislative  burdens  im 
posed  by  that  war  1  Could  the  party  evolve  a  construct 
ive  programme  and  at  the  same  time  name  a  candidate 
that  would  win  another  victory  at  the  polls? 

It  soon  transpired  that  the  Democratic  party  was  at 
loggerheads.  Of  all  the  factions,  that  headed  by  the 
South  Carolina  delegation  possessed  the  greatest  soli 
darity.  Under  the  leadership  of  Calhoun,  its  attitude 
toward  slavery  in  the  Territories  was  already  clearly 
stated  in  almost  syllogistic  form:  the  States  are  co- 
sovereigns  in  the  Territories ;  the  general  government 
is  only  the  agent  of  the  co-sovereigns;  therefore, 
the  citizens  of  each  State  may  settle  in  the  Territories 

127 


128  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

with  whatever  is  recognized  as  property  in  their  own 
State.  The  corollary  of  this  doctrine  was:  Congress 
may  not  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territories. 

At  the  other  pole  of  political  thought,  stood  the  sup 
porters  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  who  had  twice  endeav 
ored  to  attach  a  prohibition  of  slavery  to  all  terri 
tory  which  should  be  acquired  from  Mexico,  and  who 
had  retarded  the  organization  of  Oregon  by  insisting 
upon  a  similar  concession  to  the  principle  of  slavery- 
restriction  in  that  Territory.  Next  to  these  Ultras  were 
those  who  doubted  the  necessity  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
believing  that  slavery  was  already  prohibited  in  the 
new  acquisitions  by  Mexican  law.  Yet  not  for  an  in 
stant  did  they  doubt  the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit 
slavery  in  the  Territories. 

Between  these  extremes  were  grouped  the  followers 
of  Senator  Cass  of  Michigan,  who  was  perhaps  the 
most  conspicuous  candidate  for  the  Democratic  nom 
ination.  In  his  famous  Nicholson  letter  of  December 
24,  1847,  he  questioned  both  the  expediency  and  con 
stitutionality  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  It  seemed  to  him 
wiser  to  confine  the  authority  of  the  general  govern 
ment  to  the  erection  of  proper  governments  for  the 
new  countries,  leaving  the  inhabitants  meantime  to 
regulate  their  internal  concerns  in  their  own  way.  In 
all  probability  neither  California  nor  New  Mexico 
would  be  adapted  to  slave  labor,  because  of  physical 
and  climatic  conditions.  Dickinson  of  New  York 
carried  this  doctrine,  which  was  promptly  dubbed 
"Squatter  Sovereignty,"  to  still  greater  lengths.  Not 
only  by  constitutional  right,  but  by  " inherent, "  "in 
nate"  sovereignty,  were  the  people  of  the  Territories 
vested  with  the  power  to  determine  their  own  concerns. 


THE   MEXICAN    CESSION  129 

Beside  these  well-defined  groups  there  were  others 
which  professed  no  doctrines  and  no  policies.  Prob 
ably  the  rank  and  file  of  the  party  were  content  to 
drift:  to  be  non-committal  was  safer  than  to  be  doc 
trinaire;  besides,  it  cost  less  effort.  Such  was  the 
plight  of  the  Democratic  party  on  the  eve  of  a  presi 
dential  election.  If  harmony  was  to  proceed  out  of 
this  diversity,  the  process  must  needs  be  accelerated. 

The  fate  of  Oregon  had  been  a  hard  one.  Without 
a  territorial  government  through  no  fault  of  their  own, 
the  settlers  had  been  repeatedly  visited  by  calamities 
which  the  prompt  action  of  Congress  might  have 
averted.1  The  Senate  had  failed  to  act  on  one  territorial 
bill;  twice  it  had  rejected  bills  which  had  passed  the 
House,  and  the  only  excuse  for  delay  was  the  question 
of  slavery,  which  everybody  admitted  could  never  exist 
in  Oregon.  On  January  10,  1848,  for  the  fourth  time, 
Douglas  presented  a  bill  to  provide  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  for  Oregon;2  but  before  he  could  urge  its 
consideration,  he  was  summoned  to  the  bed-side  of  his 
father-in-law.  His  absence  left  a  dead-lock  in  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories :  Democrats  and  Whigs  could  not 
agree  on  the  clause  in  the  bill  which  prohibited  slavery 
in  Oregon.  What  was  the  true  inwardness  of  this 
unwillingness  to  prohibit  slavery  where  it  could  never 
go? 

The  Senate  seemed  apathetic;  but  its  apathy  was 
more  feigned  than  real.  There  was,  indeed,  great  in 
terest  in  the  bill,  but  equally  great  reluctance  to  act 
upon  it.  What  the  South  feared  was  not  that  Oregon 
would  be  free  soil, — that  was  conceded, — but  that  an 

irFhis  was  Benton's  opinion;  see  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  804. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  136,309. 
9 


130  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

unfavorable  precedent  would  be  established.  Were  it 
conceded  that  Congress  might  exclude  slavery  from 
Oregon,  a  similar  power  could  not  be  denied  Congress 
in  legislating  for  the  newly  acquired  Territories  where 
slavery  was  possible.1 

As  a  last  resort,  a  select  committee  was  appointed, 
of  which  Senator  Clayton  became  chairman.  Within 
a  week,  a  compromise  was  reported  which  embraced 
not  only  Oregon,  but  California  and  New  Mexico  as 
well.  The  laws  of  the  provisional  government  of 
Oregon  were  to  stand  until  the  new  legislature  should 
alter  them,  while  the  legislatures  of  the  prospective 
Territories  of  California  and  New  Mexico  were  for 
bidden  to  make  laws  touching  slavery.  The  question 
whether,  under  existing  laws,  slaves  might  or  might  not 
be  carried  into  these  two  Territories,  was  left  to  the 
courts  with  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States.2  The  Senate  accepted  this  com 
promise  after  a  prolonged  debate,  but  the  House  laid 
it  on  the  table  without  so  much  as  permitting  it  to  be 
read.3 

Douglas  returned  in  time  to  give  his  vote  for  the 
Clayton  compromise,4  but  when  this  laborious  effort 
to  adjust  controverted  matters  failed,  he  again  pressed 
his  original  bill.5  Hoping  to  make  this  more  palatable, 
he  suggested  an  amendment  to  the  objectionable  pro 
hibitory  clause:  " inasmuch  as  the  said  territory  is 
north  of  the  parallel  of  36°  30'  of  north  latitude,  usually 
known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise."  It  was  the  wish 
of  his  committee,  he  told  the  Senate,  that  "no  Senator's 

1  See  remarks  of  Mason  of  Virginia,  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  903. 

a  Ibid.,  p.  950.     The  bill  is  printed  on  pp.  1002-1005. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1007.  *Ibid.,  p.  1002.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1027. 


THE   MEXICAN    CESSION  131 

vote  on  the  bill  should  be  understood  as  committing 
him  on  the  great  question."1  In  other  words,  he  in 
vited  the  Senate  to  act  without  creating  a  precedent; 
to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  without  rais 
ing  troublesome  constitutional  questions  in  the  rest  of 
the  public  domain;  to  legislate  for  a  special  case  on 
the  basis  of  an  old  agreement,  without  predicating 
anything  about  the  future.  When  this  amendment 
came  to  vote,  only  Douglas  and  Bright  supported  it.2 

Douglas  then  proposed  to  extend  the  Missouri  Com 
promised  line  to  the  Pacific,  by  an  amendment  which 
declared  the  old  agreement  "revived  ....  and  in  full 
force  and  binding  for  the  future  organization  of  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States,  in  the  same  sense 
and  with  the  same  understanding  with  which  it  was 
originally  adopted/'3  This  was  President  Polk's  solu 
tion  of  the  question.  It  commended  itself  to  Douglas 
less  on  grounds  of  equity  than  of  expediency.  It  was 
a  compromise  which  then  cost  him  no  sacrifice  of  prin 
ciple;  but  though  the  Senate  agreed  to  the  proposal, 
the  House  would  have  none  of  it.4  In  the  end,  after  an 
exhausting  session,  the  Senate  gave  way,5  and  the 
Territory  of  Oregon  was  organized  with  the  restrictive 
clause  borrowed  from  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  All  this 
turmoil  had  effected  nothing  except  ill-feeling,  for  the 
final  act  was  identical  with  the  bill  which  Douglas  had 
originally  introduced  in  the  House. 

In  the  meantime,  national  party  conventions  for  the 
nomination  of  presidential  candidates  had  been  held. 

1  Glole,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1048. 

zlUd.,  p.  1061. 

876id,  pp.  1061-1062. 

*lUd.,  pp.  1062-1063. 

8  Douglas  voted  finally  to  recede  from  his  amendment,  Ibid.,  p.  1078. 


132  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

The  choice  of  the  Democrats  fell  upon  Cass;  but  his 
nomination  could  not  be  interpreted  as  an  indorsement 
of  his  doctrine  of  squatter  sovereignty.  By  a  decisive 
vote,  the  convention  rejected  Yancey's  resolution  favor 
ing  "non-interference  with  the  rights  of  property  of 
any  portion  of  the  people  of  this  confederation,  be  it 
in  the  States  or  in  the  Territories,  by  any  other  than 
the  parties  interested  in  them."1  The  action  of  the  con 
vention  made  it  clear  that  traditional  principles  and 
habitual  modes  of  political  thought  and  action  alone 
held  the  party  together.  The  Whig  party  had  no 
greater  organic  unity.  The  nomination  of  General 
Taylor,  who  was  a  doubtful  Whig,  was  a  confession 
that  the  party  was  non-committal  on  the  issues  of  the 
hour.  There  was  much  opposition  to  both  candidates. 
Many  anti- slavery  Whigs  could  not  bring  themselves 
to  vote  for  Taylor,  who  was  a  slave-owner ;  Democrats 
who  had  supported  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  disliked  the 
evasive  doctrine  of  Cass. 

The  disaffected  of  both  parties  finally  effected  a 
fusion  in  the  Free-Soil  convention,  and  with  other  anti- 
slavery  elements  nominated  Van  Buren  as  their  presi 
dential  candidate.  With  the  cry  of  "Free  soil,  free 
speech,  free  labor,  and  free  men,"  the  new  party 
threatened  to  upset  the  calculations  of  politicians  in 
many  quarters  of  the  country. 

The  defeat  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the  election  of 
1848  was  attributed  to  the  war  of  factions  in  New  York. 
Had  the  Barnburners  supported  Cass,  he  would  have 
secured  the  electoral  vote  of  the  State.  They  were 
accused  of  wrecking  the  party  out  of  revenge.  Certain 
it  is  that  the  outcome  was  indecisive,  so  far  as  the 

1  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  p.  236. 


THE   MEXICAN    CESSION  133 

really  vital  questions  of  the  hour  were  concerned.  A 
Whig  general  had  been  sent  to  the  White  House,  but 
no  one  knew  what  policies  he  would  advocate.  The 
Democrats  were  still  in  control  of  the  Senate;  but 
thirteen  Free-Soilers  held  the  balance  of  power  in  the 
House.1 

Curiosity  was  excited  to  know  what  the  moribund 
administration  of  the  discredited  Polk  would  do. 
Douglas  shared  this  inquisitiveness.  He  had  parted 
with  the  President  in  August  rather  angrily,  owing  to 
a  fancied  grievance.  On  his  return  he  called  at  the 
White  House  and  apologized  handsomely  for  his  "im 
prudent  language."2  The  President  was  more  than 
glad  to  patch  up  the  quarrel,  for  he  could  ill  afford 
now,  in  these  waning  hours  of  his  administration,  to 
part  company  with  one  whom  he  regarded  as  "an 
ardent  and  active  political  supporter  and  friend. " 
Cordial  relations  resumed,  Polk  read  to  Douglas  con 
fidentially  such  portions  of  his  forthcoming  message 
as  related  to  the  tariff,  the  veto  power,  and  the  estab 
lishment  of  territorial  governments  in  California  and 
New  Mexico.  In  the  spirit  of  compromise  he  was  still 
willing  to  approve  an  extension  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  line  through  our  new  possessions.  Should 
this  prove  unacceptable,  he  would  give  his  consent  to  a 
bill  which  would  leave  the  vexing  question  of  slavery 
in  the  new  Territories  to  the  judiciary,  as  Clayton  had 
proposed.  Douglas  was  now  thoroughly  deferential. 
He  gratified  the  President  by  giving  the  message  his 
unqualified  approval.3 

1  Garrison,  Westward  Extension,  p.  284. 

2  Polk,  MS.  Diary,  Entry  for  November  13,  1848. 


134  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

However,  by  the  time  Congress  met,  Douglas  had 
made  out  his  own  programme ;  and  it  differed  in  one 
respect  from  anything  that  the  President,  or  for  that 
matter  anyone  else,  had  suggested.  He  proposed  to 
admit  both  New  Mexico  and  California ;  i.  e.  all  of  the 
territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  into  the  Union  as  a 
State.  Some  years  later,  Douglas  said  that  he  had  in 
troduced  his  California  bill  with  the  approval  of  the 
President  j1  but  in  this  his  memory  was  surely  at  fault. 
The  full  credit  for  this  innovation  belongs  to  Douglas.2 
He  justified  the  departure  from  precedent  in  this  in 
stance,  on  the  score  of  California's  astounding  growth 
in  population.  Besides,  a  territorial  bill  could  hardly 
pass  in  this  short  session,  "for  reasons  which  may  be 
apparent  to  all  of  us."  Three  bills  had  already  been 
rejected.3 

Now  while  California  had  rapidly  increased  in  popu 
lation,  there  were  probably  not  more  than  twenty-six 
thousand  souls  within  its  borders,  and  of  these  more 
than  a  third  were  foreigners.4  One  would  naturally 
suppose  that  a  period  of  territorial  tutelage  would 
have  been  peculiarly  fitting  for  this  distant  possession. 
Obviously,  Douglas  did  not  disclose  his  full  thought. 
What  he  really  proposed,  was  to  avoid  raising  the 
spectre  of  slavery  again.  If  the  people  of  California 
could  skip  the  period  of  their  political  minority  and 
leap  into  their  majority,  they  might  then  create  their 
own  institutions:  no  one  could  gainsay  this  right, 

*See  Douglas's  Speech  of  December  23,  1851. 
2  Polk,  MS.  Diary,  Entry  for  December  11,  1848. 
8  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  21. 

4  Hunt,  Genesis  of  California 's  First  Constitution,  in  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  XIII,  pp.  16,  30. 


THE   MEXICAN    CESSION  135 

when  once  California  should  be  a  "sovereign  State." 
This  was  an  application  of  squatter  sovereignty  at 
which  Calhoun,  least  of  all,  could  mock. 

The  President  and  his  cabinet  were  taken  by  sur 
prise.  Frequent  consultations  were  held.  Douglas  was 
repeatedly  closeted  with  the  President.  All  the  mem 
bers  of  the  cabinet  agreed  that  the  plan  of  leaving 
the  slavery  question  to  the  people  of  the  new  State 
was  ingenious;  but  many  objections  were  raised  to  a 
single  State.  In  repeated  interviews,  Polk  urged 
Douglas  to  draft  a  separate  bill  for  New  Mexico ;  but 
Douglas  was  obdurate.1 

To  Douglas's  chagrin,  the  California  bill  was  not 
referred  to  his  committee,  but  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary.  Perhaps  this  course  was  in  accord  with 
precedent,  but  it  was  noted  that  four  out  of  the  five 
members  of  this  committee  were  Southerners,  and  that 
the  vote  to  refer  was  a  sectional  one.2  An  adverse 
report  was  therefore  to  be  expected.  Signs  were  not 
wanting  that  if  the  people  of  the  new  province  were 
left  to  work  out  their  own  salvation,  they  would  ex 
clude  slavery.3  The  South  was  acutely  sensitive  to 
such  signs.  Nothing  of  this  bias,  however,  appeared 
in  the  report  of  the  committee.  With  great  cleverness 
and  circumspection  they  chose  another  mode  of  attack. 

The  committee  professed  to  discover  in  the  bill  a 
radical  departure  from  traditional  policy.  When  had 
Congress  ever  created  a  State  out  of  "an  unorganized 
body  of  people  having  no  constitution,  or  laws,  or 
legitimate  bond  of  union  1"  California  was  to  be  a 

1  Polk,  MS.  Diary,  Entries  for  December  11,  12,  13,  14,  1848. 

2  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  46-49. 

8  See  the  petition  of  the  people  of  New  Mexico,  Ibid.,  p.  33. 


136  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

"sovereign  State, "  yet  the  bill  provided  that  Congress 
should  interpose  its  authority  to  form  new  States  out 
of  it,  and  to  prescribe  rules  for  elections  to  a  constitu 
tional  convention.  What  sort  of  sovereignty  was  this? 
Moreover,  since  Texas  claimed  a  part  of  New  Mexico, 
endless  litigations  would  follow.  In  the  judgment  of 
the  committee,  it  would  be  far  wiser  to  organize  the 
usual  territorial  governments  for  California  and  New 
Mexico.1 

To  these  sensible  objections,  Douglas  replied  inef 
fectively.  The  question  of  sovereignty,  he  thought, 
did  not  depend  upon  the  size  of  a  State :  without  doing 
violence  to  the  sovereignty  of  California,  Congress 
could  surely  carve  new  States  out  of  its  territory ;  but 
if  there  were  doubts  on  this  point,  he  would  move  to 
add  the  saving  clause,  "with  the  consent  of  the  State." 
He  suggested  no  expedient  for  the  other  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  State  sovereignty.  As  for  precedents,  there 
were  the  first  three  States  admitted  into  the  Union, — 
Kentucky,  Vermont,  and  Tennessee, — none  of  which 
had  any  organized  government  recognized  by  Con 
gress.2  They  never  furnished  their  constitutions  to 
Congress  for  inspection.  Here  Douglas  hit  wide  of  the 
mark.  No  one  had  contended  that  a  State  must  pre 
sent  a  written  constitution  before  being  recognized, 
but  only  that  the  people  must  have  some  form  of  poli 
tical  organization,  before  they  could  be  treated  as  con 
stituting  a  State  in  a  constitutional  sense.3 

At  the  same  time,  halting  as  this  defense  was, 
Douglas  gave  ample  proof  of  his  disinterestedness  in 

1  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  190-192. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  192-193. 

*Ibid.,  p.  196;  particularly  the  incisive  reply  of  Weatcott. 


THE   MEXICAN   CESSION  137 

advocating  a  State  government  for  California.  "I 
think,  Sir,"  he  said,  "that  the  only  issue  now  pre 
sented,  is  whether  you  will  admit  California  as  a 
State,  or  whether  you  will  leave  it  without  government, 
exposed  to  all  the  horrors  of  anarchy  and  violence. 
I  have  no  hope  of  a  Territorial  government  this  ses 
sion.  No  man  is  more  willing  to  adopt  such  a  form  of 
government  than  I  would  be ;  no  man  would  work  with 
more  energy  and  assiduity  to  accomplish  that  object 
at  this  session  than  I  would. "l  Indeed,  so  far  from 
questioning  his  motives,  the  members  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee  quite  overwhelmed  Douglas  by  their  ex 
treme  deference.2  Senator  Butler,  the  chairman,  as 
sured  him  that  the  committee  was  disposed  to  treat 
the  bill  with  all  the  respect  due  to  its  author;  for  his 
own  part,  he  had  always  intended  to  show  marked  re 
spect  to  the  Senator  from  Illinois.3  Douglas  responded 
somewhat  grimly  that  he  was  quite  at  a  loss  to  under 
stand  "why  these  assurances  came  so  thick  on  this 
point." 

Most  men  would  have  accepted  the  situation  as 
thoroughly  hopeless;  but  Douglas  was  nothing  if  not 
persistent.  In  quick  succession  he  framed  two  more 
bills,  one  of  which  provided  for  a  division  of  California 
and  for  the  admission  of  the  western  part  as  a  State  ;4 
and  then  when  this  failed  to  win  support,  he  reverted 
to  Folk's  suggestion — the  admission  of  New  Mexico 
and  California  as  two  States.5  But  the  Senate  evinced 
no  enthusiasm  for  this  patch-work  legislation.6 

The  difficulty  of  legislating  for  California  was  in- 

1  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  193.  2  Ibid.,  p.  196. 

*Ibid.,  p.  194.  *Ibid.,  p.  262. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  381.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  435,  551,  553. 


138  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

creased  by  the  disaffection  of  the  Southern  wing  of  the 
Democratic  party.  Calhoun  was  suspected  of  foment 
ing  a  conspiracy  to  break  up  the  Union.1  Yet  in  all 
probability  he  contemplated  only  the  formation  of  a 
distinctly  Southern  party  based  on  common  economic 
and  political  interests.2  He  not  only  failed  in  this, 
because  Southern  Whigs  were  not  yet  ready  to  break 
with  their  Northern  associates ;  but  he  barely  avoided 
breaking  up  the  solidarity  of  Southern  Democrats, 
and  he  made  it  increasingly  difficult  for  Northern  and 
Southern  Democrats  to  act  together  in  matters  which 
did  not  touch  the  peculiar  institution  of  the  South.3 
Thenceforth,  harmonious  party  action  was  possible 
only  through  a  deference  of  Northern  Democrats  to 
Southern,  which  was  perpetually  misinterpreted  by 
their  opponents. 

Senator  Hale  thought  the  course  of  Northern  rep 
resentatives  and  senators  pusillanimous  and  submis 
sive  to  the  last  degree ;  and  no  considerations  of  taste 
prevented  him  from  expressing  his  opinions  on  all  oc 
casions.  Nettled  by  his  taunts,  and  no  doubt  sensitive 
to  the  grain  of  truth  in  the  charge,  perplexed  also  by 
the  growing  factionalism  in  his  party,  Douglas  retorted 
that  the  fanaticism  of  certain  elements  at  the  North 
was  largely  responsible  for  the  growth  of  sectional 
rancor.  For  the  first  time  he  was  moved  to  state  pub 
licly  his  maturing  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  squatter 
sovereignty,  as  a  solvent  of  existing  problems  in  the 
public  domain. 

"Sir,  if  we  wish  to  settle  this  question  of  slavery, 

*Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  p. 
418.  2  Calhoun,  Works,  VI,  pp.  290-303. 

8  Von  Hoist,  Const.  History,  III,  pp.  422-423. 


THE   MEXICAN    CESSION  139 

let  us  banish  the  agitation  from  these  halls.  Let  us 
remove  the  causes  which  produce  it;  let  us  settle  the 
territories  we  have  acquired,  in  a  manner  to  satisfy  the 
honor  and  respect  the  feelings  of  every  portion  of  the 
Union.  .  .  .  Bring  those  territories  into  this  Union  as 
States  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States. 
Let  the  people  of  such  States  settle  the  question  of 
slavery  within  their  limits,  as  they  would  settle  the 
question  of  banking,  or  any  other  domestic  institution, 
according  to  their  own  will. ' n 

And  again,  he  said,  "No  man  advocates  the  exten 
sion  of  slavery  over  a  territory  now  free.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  deny  the  propriety  of  Congress  interfering 
to  restrain,  upon  the  great  fundamental  principle  that 
the  people  are  the  source  of  all  power ;  that  from  the 
people  must  emanate  all  government;  that  the  people 
have  the  same  right  in  these  territories  to  establish 
a  government  for  themselves  that  we  have  to  over 
throw  our  present  government  and  establish  another, 
if  we  please,  or  that  any  other  government  has  to  es 
tablish  one  for  itself."2 

Not  the  least  interesting  thing  about  these  utterances, 
is  the  fact  that  even  Douglas  could  not  now  avoid 
public  reference  to  the  slavery  question.  He  could 
no  longer  point  to  needed  legislation  quite  apart  from 
sectional  interests;  he  could  no  longer  treat  slavery 
with  assumed  indifference ;  he  could  no  longer  affect 
to  rise  above  such  petty,  local  concerns  to  matters  of 
national  importance.  He  was  now  bound  to  admit  that 
slavery  stood  squarely  in  the  way  of  national  expan 
sion.  This  change  of  attitude  was  brought  about  in 

1  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  208. 
albid.,  p.  314. 


140  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

part,  at  least,  by  external  pressure  applied  by  the  legis 
lature  of  Illinois.  With  no  little  chagrin,  he  was  forced 
to  present  resolutions  from  his  own  State  legislature, 
instructing  him  and  his  colleagues  in  Congress  to  use 
their  influence  to  secure  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in 
the  Mexican  cession.1  It  was  not  easy  to  harmonize 
these  instructions  with  the  principle  of  non-interfer 
ence  which  he  had  just  enunciated. 

Ten  days  before  the  close  of  the  session,  the  Cali 
fornia  question  again  came  to  the  fore.  Senator 
Walker  of  Wisconsin  proposed  a  rider  to  the  appro 
priations  bill,  which  would  extend  the  Constitution  and 
laws  in  such  a  way  as  to  authorize  the  President  to 
set  up  a  quasi-territorial  government,  in  the  country 
acquired  from  Mexico.2  It  was  a  deliberate  hold-up, 
justified  only  by  the  exigencies  of  the  case,  as  Walker 
admitted.  But  could  Congress  thus  extend  the  Constitu 
tion,  by  this  fiat?  questioned  Webster.  The  Constitu 
tion  extends  over  newly  acquired  territory  proprio 
vigore,  replied  Calhoun.3  Douglas  declined  to  enter 
into  the  subtle  questions  of  constitutional  law  thus 
raised.  The  "metaphysics"  of  the  subject  did  not 
disturb  him.  If  the  Senate  would  not  pass  his  state 
hood  bill,  he  was  for  the  Walker  amendment.  A  fear 
ful  responsibility  rested  upon  Congress.  The  sad  fate 
of  a  family  from  his  own  State,  which  had  moved  to 
California,  had  brought  home  to  him  the  full  measure 
of  his  responsibility.  He  was  not  disposed  to  quibble 
over  points  of  law,  while  American  citizens  in  Cali- 

1  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  394.  *iua.,  p.  561. 

*IUd,  App.,  pp.  253  ff.  The  debate  summarized  by  Von  Hoist, 
III,  pp.  444-451. 


THE   MEXICAN    CESSION  141 

fornia  were  exposed  to  the  outrages  of  desperadoes, 
and  of  deserters  from  our  own  army  and  navy.1 

While  the  Senate  yielded  to  necessity  and  passed  the 
appropriations  bill,  rider  and  all,  the  House  stub 
bornly  clung  to  its  bill  organizing  a  territorial  govern 
ment  for  California,  excluding  slavery.2  The  follow 
ing  days  were  among  the  most  exciting  in  the  history 
of  Congress.  A  conference  committee  was  unable  to 
reach  any  agreement.  Then  Douglas  tried  to  seize  the 
psychological  moment  to  persuade  the  Senate  to  ac 
cept  the  House  bill.  ' 'I  have  tried  to  get  up  State  bills, 
territorial  bills,  and  all  kinds  of  bills  in  all  shapes,  in 
the  hope  that  some  bill,  in  some  shape,  would  satisfy 
the  Senate;  but  thus  far  I  have  found  their  taste  in 
relation  to  this  matter  too  fastidious  for  my  humble 
efforts.  Now  I  wish  to  make  another  and  a  final  effort 
on  this  bill,  to  see  if  the  Senate  are  disposed  to  do 
anything  towards  giving  a  government  to  the  people 
of  California."3 

Both  Houses  continued  in  session  far  into  the  night 
of  March  3d.  Sectional  feeling  ran  high.  Two  fist- 
fights  occurred  in  the  House  and  at  least  one  in  the 
Senate.4  It  seemed  as  though  Congress  would  adjourn, 
leaving  our  civil  and  diplomatic  service  penniless. 
Douglas  frankly  announced  that  for  his  part  he  would 
rather  leave  our  office-holders  without  salaries,  than 
our  citizens  without  the  protection  of  law.5  Inaugura 
tion  Day  was  dawning  when  the  dead-lock  was  broken. 

1  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  275-276. 

2 Ibid.,  pp.  595,  665.  'Ibid.,  p.  668. 

4  Mann,  Life  of  Horace  Mann,  p.  277. 

5  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  685. 


142  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

The  Senate  voted  the  appropriations  bill  without  the 
rider,  but  failed  to  act  on  the  House  bill.1  The  people 
of  California  were  thus  left  to  their  own  devices. 

The  outcome  was  disheartening  to  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Territories.  His  programme  had 
miscarried  at  every  important  point.  Only  his  bill 
for  the  organization  of  Minnesota  became  law.2  A 
similar  bill  for  Nebraska  failed  to  receive  considera 
tion.  The  future  of  California  remained  problematic. 
Indeed,  political  changes  in  Illinois  made  his  own 
future  somewhat  problematic. 

1  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  691-692. 
d.,  pp.  635-637;  p.  693. 


BOOK  II 
THE  DOCTEINE  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY 


CHAPTEE  VIII 

SENATOK  AND  CONSTITUENCY 

When  Douglas  took  his  seat  in  Congress  for  the 
first  time,  an  unknown  man  in  unfamiliar  surround 
ings,  he  found  as  his  near  neighbor,  one  David  S.  Eeid, 
a  young  lawyer  from  North  Carolina,  who  was  of  his 
own  age,  of  his  own  party,  and  like  him,  serving 
a  first  term.  An  acquaintance  sprang  up  between 
these  young  Democrats,  which,  in  spite  of  their  widely 
different  antecedents,  deepened  into  intimacy.  It  was 
a  friendship  that  would  have  meant  much  to  Douglas, 
even  if  it  had  not  led  to  an  interesting  romance.  In 
tercourse  with  this  able  young  Southerner1  opened  the 
eyes  of  this  Western  Yankee  to  the  finer  aspects  of 
Southern  social  life,  and  taught  him  the  quality  of  that 
Southern  aristocracy,  which,  when  all  has  been  said, 
was  the  truest  aristocracy  that  America  has  seen.  And 
when  Eeid  entertained  his  friends  and  relatives  in 
Washington,  Douglas  learned  also  to  know  the  charm 
of  Southern  women. 

Among  the  most  attractive  of  these  visitors  was 
Eeid's  cousin,  Miss  Martha  Denny  Martin,  daughter 
of  Colonel  Eobert  Martin  of  Eockingham  County, 
North  Carolina.  Eumor  has  it  that  Douglas  speedily 
fell  captive  to  the  graces  of  this  young  woman.  She 
was  not  only  charming  in  manner  and  fair  of  face, 
but  keen-witted  and  intelligent.  In  spite  of  the  gay 

1  Eeid  was  afterward  Governor  of  North  Carolina  and  United  States 
Senator. 

10  145 


146  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

badinage  with  which  she  treated  this  young  Westerner, 
she  revealed  a  depth  and  positiveness  of  character,  to 
which  indeed  her  fine,  broad  forehead  bore  witness  on 
first  acquaintance.  In  the  give  and  take  of  small  talk 
she  more  than  held  her  own,  and  occasionally  discom 
fited  her  admirer  by  sallies  which  were  tipped  with  wit 
and  reached  their  mark  unerringly.1  Did  she  know 
that  just  such  treatment — strange  paradox — won,  while 
it  at  times  wounded,  the  heart  of  the  unromantic 
Westerner? 

Colonel  Eobert  Martin  was  a  typical,  western  North 
Carolina  planter.  He  belonged  to  that  stalwart  line 
of  Martins  whose  most  famous  representative  Was 
Alexander,  of  Eevolutionary  days,  six  times  Governor 
of  the  State.  On  the  banks  of  the  upper  Dan,  Colonel 
Martin  possessed  a  goodly  plantation  of  about  eight 
hundred  acres,  upon  which  negro  slaves  cultivated 
cotton  and  such  of  the  cereals  as  were  needed  for 
home  consumption.2  Like  other  planters,  he  had  felt  the 
competition  of  the  virgin  lands  opened  up  to  cotton  cul 
ture  in  the  gulf  plains  of  Alabama,  Mississippi,  and 
Louisiana;  and  like  his  fellow  planters,  he  had  in 
vested  in  these  Western  lands,  on  the  Pearl  Eiver  in 
Mississippi.  This  Pearl  Eiver  plantation  was  worked 
by  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  negroes  and  was  de 
voted  to  the  raising  of  cotton. 

When  Douglas  accepted  Eeid's  invitation  to  visit 
North  Carolina,  the  scene  of  the  romance  begun  on  the 
Potomac  shifted  to  the  banks  of  the  Dan.  Southern 

1  For  many  of  the  facts  relating  to  Douglas  'a  courtship  and  marriage, 
I  am   indebted   to  his   son,    Judge   Eobert   Martin   Douglas,   of  North 
Carolina. 

2  At  the  death  of  Colonel  Martin,  this  plantation  was  worked  by  some 
seventeen  slaves,  according  to  his  will. 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  147 

hospitality  became  more  than  a  conventional  phrase 
on  Douglas's  lips.  He  enjoyed  a  social  privilege  which 
grew  rarer  as  North  and  South  fell  apart.  Intercourse 
like  this  broke  down  many  of  those  prejudices  uncon 
sciously  cherished  by  Northerners.  Slavery  in  the  con 
crete,  on  a  North  Carolina  plantation,  with  a  kindly 
master  like  Colonel  Martin,1  bore  none  of  the  marks 
of  a  direful  tyranny.  Whatever  may  have  been  his 
mental  reservations  as  to  slavery  as  a  system  of  labor, 
Douglas  could  not  fail  to  feel  the  injustice  of  the  taunts 
hurled  against  his  Southern  friends  by  the  Abolitionist 
press.  As  he  saw  the  South,  the  master  was  not  a 
monster  of  cruelty,  nor  the  slave  a  victim  of  malevolent 
violence. 

The  romance  on  the  banks  of  the  Dan  flowed  far 
more  clearly  and  smoothly  toward  its  goal  than  the 
waters  of  that  turbid  stream.  On  April  7,  1847, 
Miss  Martin  became  the  wife  of  the  Honorable  Stephen 
Arnold  Douglas,  who  had  just  become  Senator  from 
the  State  of  Illinois.  It  was  in  every  way  a  fateful 
alliance.  Next  to  his  Illinois  environment,  no  external 
circumstance  more  directly  shaped  his  career  than  his 
marriage  to  the  daughter  of  a  North  Carolina  planter. 
The  subtle  influences  of  a  home  and  a  wife  dominated 
by  Southern  culture,  were  now  to  work  upon  him. 
Constant  intercourse  with  Southern  men  and  women 
emancipated  him  from  the  narrowness  of  his  heredi 
tary  environment.2  He  was  bound  to  acquire  an  in 
sight  into  the  nature  of  Southern  life;  he  was  com 
pelled  to  comprehend,  by  the  most  tender  and  intimate 

1  This  impression  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  terms  of  his  will. 

2  He  was  himself  fully  conscious  of  this  influence.     See  his  speech  at 
Raleigh,  August  30,  1860. 


148  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

of  human  relationships,  the  meaning  and  responsibility 
of  a  social  order  reared  upon  slave  labor. 

A  year  had  hardly  passed  when  the  death  of  Colonel 
Martin  left  Mrs.  Douglas  in  possession  of  all  his  prop 
erty  in  North  Carolina.  It  had  been  his  desire  to  put 
his  Pearl  Eiver  plantation,  the  most  valuable  of  his 
holdings,  in  the  hands  of  his  son-in-law.  But  Douglas 
had  refused  to  accept  the  charge,  not  wishing  to  hold 
negroes.  Indeed,  he  had  frankly  told  Colonel  Martin 
that  the  family  already  held  more  slaves  than  was 
profitable.1  In  his  will,  therefore,  Colonel  Martin  was 
constrained  to  leave  his  Mississippi  plantation  and 
slaves  to  Mrs.  Douglas  and  her  children.  It  was 
characteristic  of  the  man  and  of  his  class,  that  his 
concern  for  his  dependents  followed  him  to  the  grave. 
A  codicil  to  his  will  provided,  that  if  Mrs.  Douglas 
should  have  no  children,  the  negroes  together  with 
their  increase  were  to  be  sent  to  Liberia,  or  to  some 
other  colony  in  Africa.  By  means  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  last  crop,  they  would  be  able  to  reach  Africa 
and  have  a  surplus  to  aid  them  in  beginning  planting. 
"I  trust  in  Providence, ' '  wrote  this  kindly  master, 
' i  she  will  have  children  and  if  so  I  wish  these  negroes 
to  belong  to  them,  as  nearly  every  head  of  the  family 
have  expressed  to  me  a  desire  to  belong  to  you  and 
your  children  rather  than  go  to  Africa;  and  to  set 
them  free  where  they  are,  would  entail  on  them  a 
greater  curse,  far  greater  in  my  opinion,  as  well  as  in 
that  of  the  intelligent  among  themselves,  than  to  have 
a  humane  master  whose  duty  it  would  be  to  see  they 

1  The  facts  are  so  stated  in  Colonel  Martin 's  will,  for  a  transcript 
of  which  I  am  indebted  to  Judge  R.  M.  Douglas. 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  149 

were  properly  protected  ....  and  properly  provided 
for  in  sickness  as  well  as  in  health."1 

The  legacy  of  Colonel  Martin  gave  a  handle  to 
Douglas's  enemies.  It  was  easy  to  believe  that  he  had 
fallen  heir  to  slave  property.  That  the  terms  of  the 
bequest  were  imperfectly  known,  did  not  deter  the  op 
position  press  from  malevolent  insinuations  which 
stung  Douglas  to  the  quick.  It  was  fatal  to  his  political 
career  to  allow  them  to  go  unchallenged.  In  the  mid 
summer  of  1850,  while  Congress  was  wrestling  with 
the  measures  of  compromise,  Douglas  wrote  to  his 
friend,  the  editor  of  the  Illinois  State  Register,  "It  is 
true  that  my  wife  does  own  about  150  negroes  in  Mis 
sissippi  on  a  cotton  plantation.  My  father-in-law  in  his 
lifetime  offered  them  to  me  and  I  refused  to  accept 
them.  This  fact  is  stated  in  his  will,  but  I  do  not  wish 
it  brought  before  the  public  as  the  public  have  no  busi 
ness  with  my  private  affairs,  and  besides  anybody 
would  see  that  the  information  must  have  come  from 
me.  My  wife  has  no  negroes  except  those  in  Missis 
sippi.  We  have  other  property  in  North  Carolina,  but 
no  negroes.  It  is  our  intention,  however,  to  remove 
all  our  property  to  Illinois  as  soon  as  possible."2  To 
correct  the  popular  rumor,  Douglas  enclosed  a  state 
ment  which  might  be  published  editorially,  or  other 
wise. 

The  dictated  statement  read  as  follows:  "The 
Quincy  Whig  and  other  Whig  papers  are  publishing 
an  article  purporting  to  be  copied  from  a  Mississippi 
paper  abusing  Judge  Douglas  as  the  owner  of  100 

1  Extract  from  the  will  of  Colonel  Martin. 

2  This  letter,  dated  August  3,  1850,  is  in  the  possession  of  Mrs.  James 
W.  Patton  of  Springfield,  Illinois. 


150  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

slaves  and  at  the  same  time  accusing  him  of  being  a 
Wilmot  Free-soiler.  That  the  article  originated  in  this 
State,  and  was  sent  to  Mississippi  for  publication  in 
order  that  it  might  be  re-published  here  we  shall  not 
question  nor  take  the  trouble  to  prove.  The  paternity 
of  the  article,  the  malice  that  prompted  it,  and  the  mis 
representations  it  contains  are  too  obvious  to  require 
particular  notice.  If  it  had  been  written  by  a  Missis- 
sippian  he  would  have  known  that  the  statement  in 
regard  to  the  ownership  of  the  negroes  was  totally  un 
true.  No  one  will  pretend  that  Judge  Douglas  has  any 
other  property  in  Mississippi  than  that  which  was  ac 
quired  in  the  right  of  his  wife  by  inheritance  upon  the 
death  of  her  father,  and  anyone  who  will  take  the 
trouble  to  examine  the  statutes  of  that  State  in  the 
Secretary's  office  in  this  City  will  find  that  by  the  laws 
of  Mississippi  all  the  property  of  a  married  woman, 
whether  acquired  by  will,  gift  or  otherwise,  becomes  her 
separate  and  exclusive  estate  and  is  not  subject  to  the 
control  or  disposal  of  her  husband  nor  subject  to  his 
debts.  We  do  not  pretend  to  know  whether  the  father 
of  Mrs.  Douglas  at  the  time  of  his  death  owned  slaves 
in  Mississippi  or  not.  We  have  heard  the  statement 
made  by  the  Whigs  but  have  not  deemed  it  of  sufficient 
importance  to  inquire  into  its  truth.  If  it  should  turn 
out  so,  in  no  event  could  Judge  Douglas  become  the 
owner  or  have  the  disposal  of  or  be  responsible  for 
them.  The  laws  of  the  State  forbid  it,  and  also  forbid 
slaves  under  such  circumstances  from  being  removed 
without  or  emancipated  within  the  limits  of  the  State. ' ' 
Born  a  Yankee,  bred  a  Westerner,  wedded  to  the 
mistress  of  a  Southern  plantation,  Douglas  represented 
a  Commonwealth  whose  population  was  made  up  of 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  151 

elements  from  all  sections.  The  influences  that  shaped 
his  career  were  extraordinarily  complex.  No  account 
of  his  subsequent  public  life  would  be  complete,  without 
reference  to  the  peculiar  social  and  political  charac 
teristics  of  his  constituency. 

The  people  of  early  Illinois  were  drawn  southward 
by  the  pull  of  natural  forces :  the  Mississippi  washes 
the  western  border  on  its  gulf -ward  course;  and  the 
chief  rivers  within  the  State  have  a  general  southerly 
trend.1  But  quite  as  important  historically  is  the  con 
vergence  of  the  Ohio,  the  Cumberland,  and  the  Tennes 
see  on  the  southern  border  of  Illinois;  for  it  was  by 
these  waterways  that  the  early  settlers  reached  the  Illi 
nois  Territory  from  the  States  of  Kentucky,  Tennessee, 
Virginia,  and  North  Carolina.  The  apex  of  the  irregu 
lar,  inverted  triangle  of  Illinois,  thrust  down  to  the  37th 
parallel  of  latitude,  brought  the  first  settlers  well 
within  the  sphere  of  Southern  influence.  Two  slave 
States  flanked  this  southern  end.  Nearly  one-half  of 
Illinois  lay  south  of  a  direct,  westward  extension  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line. 

In  the  early  days,  the  possession  by  the  Indians  of 
the  northern  areas  accentuated  the  southern  connec 
tions  of  Illinois.  At  the  same  time  the  absence  at  the 
North  of  navigable  waterways  and  passable  highways 
between  East  and  West,  left  the  Ohio  and  its  tributaries 
the  only  connecting  lines  of  travel  with  the  remote 
northern  Atlantic  States.  Had  Illinois  been  admitted 
into  the  Union  with  the  boundaries  first  proposed,  it 
would  have  been,  by  all  those  subtle  influences  which  go 

1  The  characteristics  of  Illinois  as  a  constituency  in  1850  are  set  forth 
in  greater  detail,  in  an  article  by  the  writer  in  the  Iowa  Journal  of 
History  and  Politics,  July,  1905. 


152  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

to  make  public  sentiment,  a  Southern  State.  But  the 
extension  of  the  northern  boundary  to  42°  30'  gave  Illi 
nois  a  frontage  of  fifty  miles  on  Lake  Michigan,  and 
deflected  the  whole  political  and  social  history  of  the 
Commonwealth.  This  contact  with  the  great  water 
ways  of  the  North  brought  to  the  State,  in  the  course  of 
time,  an  immense  share  of  the  lake  traffic  and  a  mo 
mentous  connection  with  the  northern  central  and 
northern  Atlantic  States.  The  passing  of  the  Indians, 
the  opening  up  of  the  great  northern  prairies  to  occu 
pation,  and  the  completion  of  the  Illinois-Michigan 
canal  made  the  northern  part  of  Illinois  fallow  for 
New  England  seeding.  Geographically,  Illinois  became 
the  connecting  link  in  the  slender  chain  which  bound 
the  men  of  the  lake  and  prairie  plains  with  the  men  of 
the  gulf  plains.  The  inevitable  interpenetration  of 
Northern  and  Southern  interests  in  Illinois,  resulting 
from  these  contacts,  is  the  most  important  fact  in  the 
social  and  political  history  of  the  State.  It  bred  in 
Illinois  statesmen  a  disposition  to  compromise  for  the 
sake  of  political  harmony  and  economic  progress,  a 
passionate  attachment  to  the  Union  as  the  sine  qua  non 
of  State  unity,  and  a  glowing  nationalism.  Illinois  was 
in  short  a  microcosm :  the  larger  problems  of  the  nation 
existed  there  in  miniature. 

When  Illinois  was  admitted  to  the  Union  in  1818, 
all  the  organized  counties  lay  to  the  south  of  the  pro 
jected  national  road  between  Terre  Haute  and  Alton, 
hence  well  within  the  sphere  of  surrounding  Southern 
influences.  The  society  of  Illinois  was  at  this  time 
predominantly  Southern  in  its  origin  and  charac 
teristics.1  Social  life  and  political  thought  were  shaped 

1  See  Patterson,   Early    Society  in   Southern   Illinois   in   the   Fergus 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  153 

by  Southern  life  and  Southern  thought.  Whatever 
points  of  contact  there  were  with  the  outside  world 
were  with  the  Southern  world.  The  movement  to  make 
Illinois  a  slave  State  was  motived  by  the  desire  to  ac 
celerate  immigration  from  the  South. 

But  people  had  already  begun  to  come  into  the  State 
who  were  not  of  Southern  origin,  and  who  succeeded 
in  deflecting  the  current  of  Illinois  politics  at  this 
critical  juncture.  The  fertile  river  bottoms  and  inter 
vening  prairies  of  southern  Illinois  no  longer  sufficed. 
The  new  comers  were  impelled  toward  the  great,  un 
dulating  prairies  which  expand  above  the  39th  parallel. 
The  rise  of  new  counties  marks  the  volume  of  this  im 
migration;1  the  attitude  of  the  older  settlers  toward 
it,  fixes  sufficiently  its  general  social  character.  This 
was  the  beginning  of  the  "Yankee"  invasion,  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania  furnishing  the  vanguard. 

As  the  northern  prairies  became  accessible  by  the 
lake  route  and  the  stage  roads,  New  England  and  New 
York  poured  a  steady  stream  of  homeseekers  into  the 
Commonwealth.  By  the  middle  of  the  century,  this 
Northern  immigration  had  begun  to  inundate  the  north 
ern  counties  and  to  overflow  into  the  interior,  where 
it  met  and  mingled  with  the  counter- cur  rent.  These 
Yankee  settlers  were  viewed  with  hostility,  not  unmixed 
with  contempt,  by  those  whose  culture  and  standards  of 

Historical  Series,  No.  14.  Also  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  38,  279- 
280;  and  Greene,  Sectional  forces  in  the  History  of  Illinois — in  the 
Publications  of  Illinois  Historical  Library,  1903. 

1  Between  181 8  and  1840,  fifty-seven  new  counties  were  organized,  of 
which  fourteen  lay  in  the  region  given  to  Illinois  by  the  shifting  of  the 
northern  boundary.  See  Publications  of  the  Illinois  Historical  Library, 
No.  8,  pp.  79-80. 


154  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

taste  had  been  formed  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's 
line.1 

This  sectional  antagonism  was  strengthened  by  the 
rapid  commercial  advance  of  northern  Illinois. 
Yankee  enterprise  and  thrift  worked  wonders  in  a  dec 
ade.  Governor  Ford,  all  of  whose  earlier  associations 
were  with  the  people  of  southern  Illinois,  writing  about 
the  middle  of  the  century,  admits  that  although  the 
settlers  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State  were  twenty, 
thirty,  forty,  and  fifty  years  in  advance,  on  the  score 
of  age,  they  were  ten  years  behind  in  point  of  wealth 
and  all  the  appliances  of  a  higher  civilization.2  The 
completion  of  the  canal  between  Lake  Michigan  and 
the  Illinois  Eiver,  however  much  it  might  contribute 
to  the  general  welfare  of  the  State,  seemed  likely  to 
profit  the  northern  rather  than  the  southern  portion. 
It  had  been  opposed  at  the  outset  by  Southerners,  who 
argued  soberly  that  it  would  flood  the  State  with 
Yankees;3  and  at  every  stage  in  its  progress  it  had 
encountered  Southern  obstruction,  though  the  grounds 
for  this  opposition  were  more  wisely  chosen. 

Political  ideals  and  customs  were  also  a  divisive 
force  in  Illinois  society.  True  to  their  earlier  political 
training,  the  Southern  settlers  had  established  the 
county  as  a  unit  of  local  government.  The  Constitu 
tion  of  1818  put  the  control  of  local  concerns  in  the 
hands  of  three  county  commissioners,  who,  though 
elected  by  the  people,  were  not  subjected  to  that  scru 
tiny  which  selectmen  encountered  in  the  New  England 
town  meeting.  To  the  democratic  New  Englander, 

1  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  280-281.  2  Ibid.,  p.  280. 

8  See  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  Chapter  on  ' '  State 
Policy. " 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  155 

every  system  seemed  defective  which  gave  him  no  op 
portunity  to  discuss  neighborhood  interests  publicly, 
and  to  call  local  officers  to  account  before  an  assembly 
of  the  vicinage.  The  new  comers  in  northern  Illinois 
became  profoundly  dissatisfied  with  the  autocratic 
board  of  county  commissioners.  Since  the  township 
might  act  as  a  corporate  body  for  school  purposes,  why 
might  they  not  enjoy  the  full  measure  of  township  gov 
ernment?  Their  demands  grew  more  and  more  insis 
tent,  until  they  won  substantial  concessions  from  the 
convention  which  framed  the  Constitution  of  1848.  But 
all  this  agitation  involved  a  more  or  less  direct  criticism 
of  the  system  which  the  people  of  southern  Illinois 
thought  good  enough  for  Yankees,  if  it  were  good 
enough  for  themselves.1 

In  the  early  history  of  Illinois,  negro  slavery  was  a 
bone  of  contention  between  men  of  Northern  and  of 
Southern  antecedents.  When  Illinois  was  admitted  as 
a  State,  there  were  over  seven  hundred  negroes  held 
in  servitude.  In  spite  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  Illinois 
was  practically  a  slave  Territory.  There  were,  to  be 
sure,  stalwart  opponents  of  slavery  even  among  those 
who  had  come  from  slave-holding  communities;  but 
taken  in  the  large,  public  opinion  in  the  Territory  sanc 
tioned  negro  slavery  as  it  existed  under  a  loose  system 
of  indenture.2  Even  the  Constitution  of  1818,  under 
which  Illinois  came  into  the  Union  as  a  free  State,  con 
tinued  the  old  system  of  indenture  with  slight  modifi 
cation.3 

*Shaw,  Local  Government  in  Illinois,  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  Univer 
sity  Studies,  Vol.  I;  Newell,  Township  Government  in  Illinois. 
2  Harris,  Negro  Servitude  in  Illinois,  Chapter  II. 
*Ibid.,  Chapter  III.    See  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution. 


156  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

It  was  in  the  famous  contest  over  the  proposed  con 
stitutional  convention  of  1824  that  the  influence  of 
Northern  opinion  respecting  slavery  was  first  felt.  The 
contest  had  narrowed  down  to  a  struggle  between  those 
who  desired  a  convention  in  order  to  draft  a  constitu 
tion  legalizing  slavery  and  those  who,  from  policy  or 
principle,  were  opposed  to  slavery  in  Illinois.  Men  of 
Southern  birth  were,  it  is  true,  among  the  most  aggres 
sive  leaders  of  the  anti-convention  forces,  but  the  de 
cisive  votes  against  the  convention  were  cast  in  the 
seven  counties  recently  organized,  in  which  there  was 
a  strong  Northern  element,1 

This  contest  ended,  the  an  ti-  slavery  sentiment 
evaporated.  The  "  Black  Laws"  continued  in  force. 
Little  or  no  interest  was  manifested  in  the  fate  of  in 
dentured  black  servants,  who  were  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  as  much  slaves  as  their  southern  kindred.  The 
leaven  of  Abolitionism  worked  slowly  in  Illinois  society. 
By  an  almost  unanimous  vote,  the  General  Assembly 
adopted  joint  resolutions  in  1837  which  condemned 
Abolitionism  as  "more  productive  of  evil  than  of  moral 
and  political  good."  There  were  then  not  a  half- 
dozen  anti-slavery  societies  in  the  State,  and  these  soon 
learned  to  confine  their  labors  to  central  and  northern 
Illinois,  abandoning  Egypt  as  hopelessly  inaccessible 
to  the  light.2 

The  issues  raised  by  the  Mexican  War  and  the  pros 
pective  acquisition  of  new  territory,  materially  changed 
the  temper  of  northern  Illinois.  Moreover,  in  the  later 
forties  a  tide  of  immigration  from  the  northeastern 
States,  augmented  by  Germans  who  came  in  increas- 


d.f   Chapter   IV.     See  also  Moses,   History  of  Illinois,   Vol.    I, 
p.  324.  a  Harris,  Negro  Servitude,  pp.  125,  136-127 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  157 

ing  numbers  after  the  European  agitation  of  1848,  was 
filling  the  northernmost  counties  with  men  and  women 
who  held  positive  convictions  on  the  question  of  slavery 
extension.  These  transplanted  New  Englanders  were 
outspoken  advocates  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  When 
they  were  asked  to  vote  upon  that  article  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  1848  which  proposed  to  prevent  the  im 
migration  of  free  negroes,  the  fourteen  northern  coun 
ties  voted  no,  only  to  find  themselves  outvoted  two  to 
one.1  A  new  factor  had  appeared  in  Illinois  politics. 
Many  and  diverse  circumstances  contributed  to  the 
growth  of  sectionalism  in  Illinois.  The  disruptive 
forces,  however,  may  be  easily  overestimated.  The 
unifying  forces  in  Illinois  society  were  just  as  varied, 
and  in  the  long  run  more  potent.  As  in  the  nation  at 
large  so  in  Illinois,  religious,  educational,  and  social 
organizations  did  much  to  resist  the  strain  of  counter 
vailing  forces.  But  no  organization  proved  in  the  end 
so  enduring  and  effective  as  the  political  party.  Illinois 
had  by  1840  two  well-developed  party  organizations, 
which  enveloped  the  people  of  the  State,  as  on  a  large 
scale  they  embraced  the  nation.  These  parties  came  to 
have  an  enduring,  institutional  character.  Men  were 
born  Democrats  and  Whigs.  Southern  and  Northern 
Whigs,  Northern  and  Southern  Democrats  there  were, 
of  course;  but  the  necessity  of  harmony  for  effective 
action  tended  to  subordinate  individual  and  group  in 
terests  to  the  larger  good  of  the  whole.  Parties  con 
tinued  to  be  organized  on  national  lines,  after  the 
churches  had  been  rent  in  twain  by  sectional  forces. 
Of  the  two  party  organizations  in  Illinois,  the  Demo 
cratic  party  was  numerically  the  larger,  and  in  point 

1  Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1847,  pp.  453-456. 


158  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

of  discipline,  the  more  efficient.  It  was  older;  it  had 
been  the  first  to  adopt  the  system  of  State  and  district 
nominating  conventions ;  it  had  the  advantage  of  pres 
tige  and  of  the  possession  of  office.  The  Democratic 
party  could  "  point  with  pride "  to  an  unbroken  series 
of  victories  in  State  and  presidential  elections.  By 
successful  gerrymanders  it  had  secured  the  lion's  share 
of  congressional  districts.  Above  all  it  had  intelligent 
leadership.  The  retirement  of  Senator  Breese  left 
Stephen  A.  Douglas  the  undisputed  leader  of  the  party. 
The  dual  party  system  in  Illinois,  as  well  as  in  the 
nation,  was  seriously  threatened  by  the  appearance 
of  a  third  political  organization  with  hostility  to 
slavery  as  its  cohesive  force.  The  Liberty  party  polled 
its  first  vote  in  Illinois  in  the  campaign  of  1840,  when 
its  candidate  for  the  presidency  received  160  votes.1 
Four  years  later  its  total  vote  in  Illinois  was  3,469,  a 
notable  increase.2  The  distribution  of  these  votes, 
however,  is  more  noteworthy  than  their  number,  for  in 
no  county  did  the  vote  amount  to  more  than  thirty  per 
cent,  of  the  total  poll  of  all  parties.  The  heaviest 
Liberty  vote  was  in  the  northern  counties.  The  votes 
cast  in  the  central  and  southern  parts  of  the  State  were 
indicative,  for  the  most  part,  of  a  Quaker  or  New  Eng 
land  element  in  the  population.3  As  yet  the  older 
parties  had  no  reason  to  fear  for  their  prestige;  but 
in  1848  the  Liberty  party  gave  place  to  the  Free-Soil 
party,  which  developed  unexpected  strength  hi  the 
presidential  vote.  It  rallied  anti-slavery  elements  by 
its  cry  of  "Free  Soil,  Free  Speech,  Free  Labor,  and 
Free  Men!"  and  for  the  first  time  broke  the  serried 

1Whig  Almanac,  1841.  2  Ibid.,  1845. 

"Smith,  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties,  pp.  326-327. 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  159 

ranks  of  the  older  parties.  Van  Buren,  the  candidate  of 
the  Free-Soilers,  received  a  vote  of  15,774,  concentrated 
in  the  northeastern  counties,  but  reaching  formidable 
proportions  in  the  counties  of  the  northwest  and  west.1 
Of  the  older  organizations,  the  Whig  party  seemed  less 
affected,  Taylor  having  received  53,047  votes,  an  in 
crease  of  7,519  over  the  Whig  vote  of  1844.  The  Demo 
cratic  candidate,  Cass,  received  only  56,300,  an  absolute 
decrease  of  1,620.  This  was  both  an  absolute  and  a 
relative  decline,  for  the  total  voting  population  had 
increased  by  24,459.  Presumptive  evidence  points  to  a 
wholesale  desertion  of  the  party  by  men  of  strong  anti- 
slavery  convictions.  Whither  they  had  gone — whether 
into  the  ranks  of  Whigs  or  Free-Soilers, — concerned 
Democratic  leaders  less  than  the  palpable  fact  that 
they  had  gone  somewhere. 

At  the  close  of  this  eventful  year,  the  political  situa 
tion  in  Illinois  was  without  precedent.  To  offset  Demo 
cratic  losses  in  the  presidential  election,  there  were, 
to  be  sure,  the  usual  Democratic  triumphs  in  State 
and  district  elections.  But  the  composition  of  the 
legislature  was  peculiar.  On  the  vote  for  Speaker  of 
the  House,  the  Democrats  showed  a  handsome  ma 
jority  :  there  was  no  sign  of  a  third  party  vote.  A  few 
days  later  the  following  resolution  was  carried  by  a 
vote  which  threw  the  Democratic  ranks  into  confusion : 
"That  our  senators  in  Congress  be  instructed,  and 
our  representatives  requested,  to  use  all  honorable 
means  in  their  power,  to  procure  the  enactment  of  such 
laws  by  Congress  for  the  government  of  the  countries 
and  territories  of  the  United  States,  acquired  by  the 
treaty  of  peace,  friendship,  limits,  and  settlement,  with 

1  Smith,  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties,  pp.  328-329. 


160  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

the  republic  of  Mexico,  concluded  February  2,  A.  D. 
1848;  as  shall  contain  the  express  declaration,  that 
there  shall  be  neither  slavery,  nor  involuntary  servi 
tude  in  said  territories,  otherwise  than  for  the  punish 
ment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 
convicted. ' n 

At  least  fifteen  representatives  of  what  had  hitherto 
been  Democratic  constituencies,  had  combined  with  the 
Whigs  to  embarrass  the  Democratic  delegation  at 
"Washington.2  Their  expectation  seems  to  have  been 
that  they  could  thus  force  Senator  Douglas  to  resign 
his  seat,  for  he  had  been  an  uncompromising  opponent 
of  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  Free-Soilers,  Whigs,  and 
Northern  Democrats  with  anti-slavery  leanings  had 
voted  for  the  instructions;  only  the  Democrats  from 
the  southern  counties  voted  solidly  to  sustain  the  Illi 
nois  delegation  in  its  opposition  to  the  Proviso.3  While 
not  a  strict  sectional  vote,  it  showed  plainly  enough 
the  rift  in  the  Democratic  party.  A  disruptive  issue 
had  been  raised.  For  the  moment  a  re-alignment  of 
parties  on  geographical  lines  seemed  imminent.  This 
was  precisely  the  trend  in  national  politics  at  this 
moment. 

There  was  a  traditional  remedy  for  this  sectional 
malady — compromise.  It  was  an  Illinois  senator,  him 
self  a  slave-owner,  who  had  proposed  the  original 
Missouri  proviso.  Senator  Douglas  had  repeatedly 
proposed  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  to 

1  House  Journal,  p.  52. 

2  All  these  fifteen  voted  for  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Speaker  of 
the  House. 

"House  Journal,  p.  52;  Senate  Journal,  p.  44.  See  also  Harris, 
Negro  Servitude  in  Illinois,  p.  177. 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  161 

the  Pacific,  in  the  same  spirit  in  which  compromise  had 
been  offered  in  1820,  but  the  essential  conditions  for  a 
compromise  on  this  basis  were  now  wanting. 

It  was  precisely  at  this  time,  when  the  Illinois  legis 
lature  was  instructing  him  to  reverse  his  attitude  to 
ward  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  that  Senator  Douglas  began 
to  change  his  policy.  Believing  that  the  combination 
against  him  in  the  legislature  was  largely  accidental 
and  momentary,  he  refused  to  resign.1  Events  amply 
justified  his  course ;  but  the  crisis  was  not  without  its 
lessons  for  him.  The  futility  of  a  compromise  based  on 
an  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  was  now 
apparent.  Opposition  to  the  extension  of  slavery  was 
too  strong;  and  belief  in  the  free  status  of  the  acquired 
territory  too  firmly  rooted  in  the  minds  of  his  constit 
uents.  There  remained  the  possibility  of  reintegrat 
ing  the  Democratic  party  through  the  application  of 
the  principle  of  "squatter  sovereignty."  Was  it  pos 
sible  to  offset  the  an ti- slavery  sentiment  of  his  North 
ern  constituents  by  an  insistent  appeal  to  their  belief 
in  local  self-government? 

The  taproot  from  which  squatter  sovereignty  grew 
and  flourished,  was  the  instinctive  attachment  of  the 
Western  American  to  local  government ;  or  to  put  the 
matter  conversely,  his  dislike  of  external  authority. 
So  far  back  as  the  era  of  the  Revolution,  intense  in 
dividualism,  bold  initiative,  strong  dislike  of  authority, 
elemental  jealousy  of  the  fruits  of  labor,  and  passionate 
attachment  to  the  soil  that  has  been  cleared  for  a  home, 
are  qualities  found  in  varying  intensity  among  the 
colonists  from  New  Hampshire  to  Georgia.  Nowhere, 
however,  were  they  so  marked  as  along  the  Western 

1  See  Speech  in  Senate,  December  23,  1851. 
11 


162  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

border,  where  centrifugal  forces  were  particularly 
strong  and  local  attachments  were  abnormally  de 
veloped.  Under  stress  of  real  or  fancied  wrongs,  it 
was  natural  for  settlers  in  these  frontier  regions  to 
meet  for  joint  protest,  or  if  the  occasion  were  grave 
enough,  to  enter  into  political  association,  to  resist 
encroachment  upon  what  they  felt  to  be  their  natural 
rights.  Whenever  they  felt  called  upon  to  justify  their 
course,  they  did  so  in  language  that  repeated,  con 
sciously  or  unconsciously,  the  theory  of  the  social 
contract,  with  which  the  political  thought  of  the  age 
was  surcharged.  In  these  frontier  communities  was 
born  the  political  habit  that  manifested  itself  on  suc 
cessive  frontiers  of  American  advance  across  the  con 
tinent,  and  that  finally  in  the  course  of  the  slavery 
controversy  found  apt  expression  in  the  doctrine  of 
squatter  sovereignty.1 

None  of  the  Territories  carved  out  of  the  original 
Northwest  had  shown  greater  eagerness  for  separate 
government  than  Illinois.  The  isolation  of  the  orig 
inal  settlements  grouped  along  the  Mississippi,  their 
remoteness  from  the  seat  of  territorial  government  on 
the  Wabash,  and  the  consequent  difficulty  of  obtaining 
legal  protection  and  efficient  government,  predisposed 
the  people  of  Illinois  to  demand  a  territorial  govern 
ment  of  their  own,  long  before  Congress  listened  to 
their  memorials.  Bitter  controversy  and  even  blood 
shed  attended  their  efforts.2 

A  generation  later  a  similar  contest  occurred  for  the 
separation  of  the  fourteen  northern  counties  from  the 

1  See  the  writer 's  article  on  f '  The  Genesis  of  Popular  Sovereignty ' '  in 
the  Iowa  Journal  of  History  and  Politics  for  January,  1905. 
'Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  241-242. 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  163 

State.  When  Congress  changed  the  northern  boundary 
of  Illinois,  it  had  deviated  from  the  express  provisions 
of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which  had  drawn  the  line 
through  the  southern  bend  of  Lake  Michigan.  This 
departure  from  the  Magna  Charta  of  the  Northwest 
furnished  the  would-be  secessionists  with  a  pretext. 
But  an  editorial  in  the  Northwestern  Gazette  and 
Galena  Advertiser,  January  20,  1842,  naively  disclosed 
their  real  motive.  Illinois  was  overwhelmed  with  debt, 
while  "Wisconsin  was  "  young,  vigorous,  and  free  from 
debt/'  "Look  at  the  district  as  it  is  now,"  wrote  the 
editor  fervidly,  "the  fag  end  of  the  State  of  Illinois — 
its  interest  wholly  disregarded  in  State  legislation — in 
short,  treated  as  a  mere  province — taxed;  laid  under 
tribute  in  the  form  of  taxation  for  the  benefit  of  the 
South  and  Middle."  The  right  of  the  people  to  deter 
mine  by  vote  whether  the  counties  should  be  annexed 
to  Illinois,  was  accepted  without  question.  A  meeting 
of  citizens  in  Jo  Daviess  County  resolved,  that  "until 
the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  altered  by  common  consent, 
the  free  inhabitants  of  the  region  had,  in  common  with 
the  free  inhabitants  of  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin,  an 
absolute,  vested,  indefeasible  right  to  form  a  per 
manent  constitution  and  State  government."1  This 
was  the  burden  of  many  memorials  of  similar  origin. 

The  desire  of  the  people  of  Illinois  to  control  local 
interests  extended  most  naturally  to  the  soil  which 
nourished  them.  That  the  Federal  Government  should 
without  their  consent  dispose  of  lands  which  they  had 
brought  under  cultivation,  seemed  to  verge  on  tyranny. 
It  mattered  not  that  the  settler  had  taken  up  lands  to 
which  he  had  no  title  in  law.  The  wilderness  belonged 

1  Northwestern  Gazette,  March  19,  1842. 


164  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

to  him  who  subdued  it.  Therefore  land  leagues  and 
claim  associations  figure  largely  in  the  history  of  the 
Northwest.  Their  object  was  everywhere  the  same,  to 
protect  the  squatter  against  the  chance  bidder  at  a 
public  land  sale. 

The  concessions  made  by  the  constitutional  conven 
tion  of  1847,  in  the  matter  of  local  government,  gave 
great  satisfaction  to  the  Northern  element  in  the  State. 
The  new  constitution  authorized  the  legislature  to  pass 
a  general  law,  in  accordance  with  which  counties  might 
organize  by  popular  vote  under  a  township  system. 
This  mode  of  settling  a  bitter  and  protracted  contro 
versy  was  thoroughly  in  accord  with  the  democratic 
spirit  of  northern  Illinois.  The  newspapers  of  the 
northern  counties  welcomed  the  inauguration  of  the 
township  system  as  a  formal  recognition  of  a  familiar 
principle.  Said  the  Will  County  Telegraph:1  "The 
great  principle  on  which  the  new  system  is  based 
is  this:  that  except  as  to  those  things  which  pertain 
to  State  unity  and  those  which  are  in  their  nature  com 
mon  to  the  whole  county,  it  is  right  that  each  small 
community  should  regulate  its  own  local  matters  with 
out  interference."  It  was  this  sentiment  to  which 
popular  sovereignty  made  a  cogent  appeal. 

No  man  was  more  sensitive  than  Senator  Douglas  to 
these  subtle  influences  of  popular  tradition,  custom,  and 
current  sentiment.  Under  the  cumulative  impression 
of  the  events  which  have  been  recorded,  his  confidence 
in  popular  sovereignty  as  an  integrating  force  in  na 
tional  and  local  politics  increased,  and  his  public 
utterances  became  more  assured  and  positive.2  By  the 

1  September  27,  1849. 

'Compare  his  utterances  on  the  following  dates:  January  10,  1849; 


SENATOR  AND  CONSTITUENCY  165 

close  of  the  year  1850,  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing 
the  collapse  of  the  Free-Soil  party  in  Illinois,  and  of 
knowing  that  the  joint  resolutions  had  been  repealed 
which  had  so  nearly  accomplished  his  overthrow.  A 
political  storm  had  been  weathered.  Yet  the  diverse 
currents  in  Illinois  society  might  again  roil  local  poli 
tics.  So  long  as  a  bitter  commercial  rivalry  divided 
northern  and  southern  Illinois,  and  social  differences 
held  the  sections  apart,  misunderstandings  dangerous 
to  party  and  State  alike  would  inevitably  follow.  How 
could  these  diverse  elements  be  fused  into  a  true  and 
enduring  union?  To  this  task  Douglas  set  his  hand. 
The  ways  and  means  which  he  employed,  form  one  of 
the  most  striking  episodes  in  his  career. 

January  22,  1849;  October  23,  1849  at  Springfield,  Illinois;  February 
12,  1850;  June  3,  1850. 


CHAPTER  IX 

MEJASTTBBS  OF  ADJUSTMENT 

When  Congress  assembled  in  December,  1849,  states 
men  of  the  old  school,  who  could  agree  in  nothing  else, 
were  of  one  mind  in  this :  the  Union  was  in  peril.  In 
the  impressive  words  of  Webster,  "the  imprisoned 
winds  were  let  loose.  The  East,  the  North,  and  the 
stormy  South  combined  to  throw  the  whole  sea  into 
commotion,  to  toss  its  billows  to  the  skies,  and  disclose 
its  profoundest  depths."  Clay  and  Calhoun  were 
equally  apprehensive.  Yet  there  were  younger  men 
who  shared  none  of  these  fears.  To  be  sure,  the  poli 
tical  atmosphere  of  Washington  was  electric.  The 
House  spent  weeks  wrangling  over  the  Speakership, 
so  that  when  the  serious  work  of  legislation  began,  men 
were  overwrought  and  excitable.  California  with  a 
free  constitution  was  knocking  at  the  door  of  the  Union. 
President  Taylor  gave  Congress  to  understand  that 
at  no  distant  day  the  people  of  New  Mexico  would  take 
similar  action.  And  then,  as  though  he  were  address 
ing  a  body  of  immortals,  he  urged  Congress  to  await 
calmly  the  action  of  the  people  of  the  Territories. 

Douglas  was  among  those  unimpressionable  younger 
men  who  would  not  believe  the  Union  to  be  in  danger. 
Perhaps  by  his  Southern  connections  he  knew  better 
than  most  Northern  men,  the  real  temper  of  the  South. 
Perhaps  he  did  not  give  way  to  the  prevailing  hysteria, 
because  he  was  diverted  from  the  great  issues  by  the 
pressing,  particular  interests  of  his  constituents.  At 

166 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  167 

all  events,  he  had  this  advantage  over  Clay,  Webster, 
and  Calhoun,  that  when  he  did  turn  his  attention  to 
schemes  of  compromise,  his  vision  was  fresh,  keen,  and 
direct.  He  escaped  that  subtle  distortion  of  mental 
perception  from  which  others  were  likely  to  suffer  be 
cause  of  long-sustained  attention.  To  such,  Douglas 
must  have  seemed  unemotional,  unsensitive,  and  lack 
ing  in  spiritual  fineness. 

Illinois  with  its  North  and  its  South  was  also  facing 
a  crisis.  To  the  social  and  political  differences  that 
bisected  the  State,  was  added  a  keen  commercial  rivalry 
between  the  sections.  While  the  State  legislature 
under  northern  control  was  appropriating  funds  for 
the  Illinois  and  Michigan  canal,  it  exhibited  far  less 
liberality  in  building  railroads,  which  alone  could  be  the 
arteries  of  traffic  in  southern  Illinois.  At  a  time  when 
railroads  were  extending  their  lines  westward  from 
the  Atlantic  seaboard,  and  reaching  out  covetously 
for  the  produce  of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  Illinois  held 
geographically  a  commanding  position.  No  roads  could 
reach  the  great  river,  north  of  the  Ohio  at  least,  with 
out  crossing  her  borders.  The  avenues  of  approach 
were  given  into  her  keeping.  To  those  who  directed 
State  policy,  it  seemed  possible  to  determine  the  com 
mercial  destinies  of  the  Commonwealth  by  controlling 
the  farther  course  of  the  railroads  which  now  touched 
the  eastern  boundary.  Well-directed  effort,  it  was 
thought,  might  utilize  these  railroads  so  as  to  build  up 
great  commercial  cities  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the 
Mississippi.  State  policy  required  that  none  of  these 
cross-roads  should  in  any  event  touch  St.  Louis,  and 
thus  make  it,  rather  than  the  Illinois  towns  now  strug 
gling  toward  commercial  greatness,  the  entrepot  be- 


168  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

tween  East  and  West.  With  its  unrivalled  site  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Missouri,  Alton  was  as  likely  a  competitor 
for  the  East  and  West  traffic,  and  for  the  Mississippi 
commerce,  as  St.  Louis.  Alton,  then,  must  be  made  the 
terminus  of  the  cross-roads.1 

The  people  of  southern  Illinois  thought  otherwise. 
Against  the  background  of  such  distant  hopes,  they  saw 
a  concrete  reality.  St.  Louis  was  already  the  market 
for  their  produce.  From  every  railroad  which  should 
cross  the  State  and  terminate  at  St.  Louis,  they  antici 
pated  tangible  profits.  They  could  not  see  why  these 
very  real  advantages  should  be  sacrificed  on  the  altar 
of  northern  interests.  After  the  opening  of  the  north 
ern  canal,  they  resented  this  exclusive  policy  with  in 
creased  bitterness. 

Upon  one  point,  and  only  one,  the  people  of  northern 
and  southern  Illinois  were  agreed :  they  believed  that 
every  possible  encouragement  should  be  given  to  the 
construction  of  a  great  central  railroad,  which  should 
cross  the  State  from  north  to  south.  Such  a  railroad 
had  been  projected  as  early  as  1836  by  a  private  cor 
poration.  Subsequently  the  State  took  up  the  project, 
only  to  abandon  it  again  to  a  private  company,  after 
the  bubble  of  internal  improvements  had  been  pricked. 
Of  this  latter  corporation, — the  Great  Western  Bail- 
road  Company, — Senator  Breese  was  a  director  and 
the  accredited  agent  in  Congress.  It  was  in  behalf  of 
this  corporation  that  he  had  petitioned  Congress  un 
successfully  for  pre-emption  rights  on  the  public 
domain.2 

1  See  the  chapter  on  ' '  State  Policy ' '  in  Davidson  and  Stuve",  History 
of  Illinois. 

a  Davidson  and  Stave",  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  573-574;  Ackerman, 
Early  Illinois  Railroads,  in  Fergus  Historical  Series,  p.  32. 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  169 

Circumstances  enlisted  Douglas's  interest  powerfully 
in  the  proposed  central  railroad.  These  circumstances 
were  partly  private  and  personal ;  partly  adventitious 
and  partly  of  his  own  making.  The  growing  sectional 
ism  in  Illinois  gave  politicians  serious  concern.  It  was 
becoming  increasingly  difficult  to  maintain  the  integrity 
of  political  parties,  when  sectional  issues  were  thrust 
into  the  foreground  of  political  discussion.  Yankee 
and  Southerner  did  not  mix  readily  in  the  caldron  of 
State  politics.  But  a  central  railroad  which  both  de 
sired,  might  promote  a  mechanical  mixture  of  social 
and  commercial  elements.  Might  it  not  also,  in  the 
course  of  time,  break  up  provincial  feeling,  cause  a 
transfusion  of  ideas,  and  in  the  end  produce  an  organic 
union? 

In  the  summer  of  1847,  Senator-elect  Douglas  took 
up  his  residence  in  Chicago,  and  identified  himself 
with  its  commercial  interests  by  investing  in  real 
estate.1  Few  men  have  had  a  keener  instinct  for 
speculation  in  land.2  By  a  sort  of  sixth  sense,  he  fore 
saw  the  growth  of  the  ugly  but  enterprising  city  on 
Lake  Michigan.  He  saw  that  commercially  Chicago 
held  a  strategic  position,  commanding  both  the  lake 
traffic  eastward,  and  the  interior  waterway  gulfward 
by  means  of  the  canal.  As  yet,  however,  these  advan 
tages  were  far  from  realization.  The  city  was  not 
even  included  within  the  route  of  the  proposed  central 
railroad.  Influential  business  men,  Eastern  capitalists, 
and  shippers  along  the  Great  Lakes  were  not  a  little 
exercised  over  this  neglect.  In  some  way  the  claims  of 
Chicago  must  be  urged  upon  the  promoters  of  the  rail- 

1  Letter  of  Breese  to  Douglas,  Illinois  State  Register,  February  6, 
1851.  a  Forney,  Anecdotes,  I,  pp.  18-20. 


170  STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS 

road.  Just  here  Douglas  could  give  invaluable  aid. 
He  pointed  out  that  if  the  railroad  were  to  secure  a 
land  grant,  it  would  need  Eastern  votes  in  Congress. 
The  old  Cairo-Galena  line  would  seem  like  a  sectional 
enterprise,  likely  to  draw  trade  down  the  Mississippi 
and  away  from  the  Atlantic  seaports.  But  if  Chicago 
were  connected  with  the  system,  as  a  terminal  at  the 
north,  the  necessary  congressional  support  might  be 
secured.1 

During  the  summer,  Douglas  canvassed  the  State, 
speaking  repeatedly  in  behalf  of  this  larger  project. 
For  a  time  he  hoped  that  Senator  Breese  would  co 
operate  with  him.  Numerous  conferences  took  place 
both  before  and  after  Congress  had  assembled;  but 
Douglas  found  his  colleague  reluctant  to  abandon  his 
pre-emption  plan.  Eegardless  of  the  memorials  which 
poured  in  upon  him  from  northern  Illinois,  Breese  in 
troduced  his  bill  for  pre-emption  rights  on  the  public 
domain,  in  behalf  of  the  Holbrook  Company,  as  the 
Great  Western  Eailway  Company  was  popularly  called. 
Thereupon  Douglas  offered  a  bill  for  a  donation  of 
public  lands  to  aid  the  State  of  Illinois  in  the  construc 
tion  of  a  central  railroad  from  Cairo  to  Galena,  with  a 
branch  from  Centralia  to  Chicago.2  Though  Breese 
did  not  actively  oppose  his  colleague,  his  lack  of 
cordiality  no  doubt  prejudiced  Congress  against  a 
grant  of  any  description.  From  the  outset,  Douglas's 
bill  encountered  obstacles :  the  opposition  of  those  who 
doubted  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  grant 
lands  for  internal  improvements  of  this  sort;  the  op 
position  of  landless  States,  which  still  viewed  the  public 

1  Letter  of  Douglas  to  Breese,  State  Register,  January  20,  1851. 
.,  January  20,  1851. 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  171 

domain  as  a  national  asset  from  which  revenue  should 
be  derived;  and,  finally,  the  opposition  of  the  old 
States  to  the  new.  Nevertheless,  the  bill  passed  the 
Senate  by  a  good  majority.  In  the  House  it  suffered 
defeat,  owing  to  the  undisguised  opposition  of  the 
South  and  of  the  landless  States  both  East  and  West. 
The  Middle  States  showed  distrust  and  uncertainty. 
It  was  perfectly  clear  that  before  such  a  project  could 
pass  the  House,  Eastern  and  Southern  representatives 
would  have  to  be  won  over.1 

After  Congress  adjourned,  Douglas  journeyed  to 
the  State  of  Mississippi,  ostensibly  on  a  business  trip 
to  his  children's  plantation.  In  the  course  of  his 
travels,  he  found  himself  in  the  city  of  Mobile — an 
apparent  digression;  but  by  a  somewhat  remarkable 
coincidence  he  met  certain  directors  of  the  Mobile 
Eailroad  in  the  city.  Now  this  corporation  was  in 
straits.  Funds  had  failed  and  the  construction  of  the 
road  had  been  arrested.  The  directors  were  casting 
about  in  search  of  relief.  Douglas  saw  his  opportunity. 
He  offered  the  distraught  officials  an  alliance.  He 
would  include  in  his  Illinois  Central  bill  a  grant  of 
land  for  their  road ;  in  return,  they  were  to  make  sure 
of  the  votes  of  their  senators  and  representatives.2 
Such,  at  least,  is  the  story  told  by  Douglas ;  and  some 
such  bargain  may  well  have  been  made.  Subsequent 
events  give  the  color  of  veracity  to  the  tale. 

When  Douglas  renewed  his  Illinois  Central  bill  in  a 
revised  form  on  January  3,  1850,  Senator  Breese  had 
been  succeeded  by  Shields,  who  was  well-disposed 

1  Sanborn,  Congressional  Grants  of  Land  in  Aid  of  Railways,  Bulle 
tin  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  pp.  27-30. 

aCutts,  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  pp.  193-194. 


172  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

toward  the  project.1  The  fruits  of  the  Mobile  con 
ference  were  at  once  apparent.  Senator  King  of  Ala 
bama  offered  an  amendment,  proposing  a  similar  dona 
tion  of  public  lands  to  his  State  and  to  Mississippi,  for 
the  purpose  of  continuing  the  projected  central  rail 
road  from  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  to  the  port  of  Mobile. 
Douglas  afterward  said  that  he  had  himself  drafted 
this  amendment,  but  that  he  had  thought  best  to  have 
Senator  King  present  it.2  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  suspi 
cion  of  collusion  between  them  can  hardly  be  avoided, 
since  the  amendment  occasioned  no  surprise  to  the 
friends  of  the  bill  and  was  adopted  without  division. 

The  project  now  before  Congress  was  of  vastly 
greater  consequence  than  the  proposed  grant  to  Illinois. 
Here  was  a  bill  of  truly  national  importance.  It  spoke 
for  itself;  it  appealed  to  the  dullest  imagination. 
What  this  amended  bill  contemplated,  was  nothing  less 
than  a  trunk  line  connecting  the  Great  Lakes  with  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico.  Now,  indeed,  as  Douglas  well  said, 
"nationality  had  been  imparted  to  the  project/'  At 
the  same  time,  it  offered  substantial  advantages  to 
the  two  landless  States  which  would  be  traversed  by  the 
railroad,  as  well  as  to  all  the  Gulf  States.  As  thus 
devised,  the  bill  seemed  reasonably  sure  to  win  votes. 

Yet  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  the  bill  passed 
smoothly  to  a  third  reading.  There  was  still  much 
shaking  of  heads  among  senators  of  the  strict  con 
struction  school.  Many  were  conquered  by  expediency 
and  threw  logic  to  the  winds;  some  preferred  to  be 

1  Douglas  renewed  his  bill  in  the  short  session  of  1848-1849,  but  did 
not  secure  action  upon  it. 

1  Cutts,  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  p.  195.  There  is  so  much 
brag  in  this  account  that  one  is  disposed  to  distiust  the  details. 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT       173 

consistent  and  spoil  a  good  cause.  The  bill  did  not 
sail  on  untroubled  seas,  even  after  it  had  been  steered 
clear  of  constitutional  shoals.  It  narrowly  ran  foul 
of  that  obstinate  Western  conviction,  that  the  public 
lands  belonged  of  right  to  the  home-seeker,  to  whose 
interests  all  such  grants  were  inimical,  by  reason  of 
the  increased  price  of  adjoining  sections  of  land.1 

The  real  battleground,  however,  was  not  the  Senate, 
but  the  House.  As  before,  the  bill  passed  the  upper 
chamber  by  an  ample  margin  of  votes.2  In  the  lower 
house,  there  was  no  prolonged  debate  upon  the  bill. 
Constitutional  scruples  do  not  seem  to  have  been 
ruffled.  The  main  difficulty  was  to  rivet  the  attention 
of  the  members.  Several  times  the  bill  was  pushed 
aside  and  submerged  by  the  volume  of  other  business. 
Finally,  on  the  same  day  that  it  passed  the  last  of  the 
compromise  measures,  on  the  17th  of  September,  1850, 
the  House  passed  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  bill  by 
a  vote  of  101  to  75.3 

A  comparison  of  this  vote  with  that  on  the  earlier 
bill  shows  a  change  of  three  votes  in  the  Middle  States, 
one  in  the  South,  ten  in  the  Gulf  States,  and  five  in 
Tennessee  and  Kentucky.4  This  was  a  triumphant 
vindication  of  Douglas's  sagacity,  for  whatever  may 
have  been  the  services  of  his  colleagues  in  winning 
Eastern  votes,5  it  was  his  bid  for  the  vote  of  the  Gulf 

1  Sanborn,  Congressional  Grants,  pp.  31-34. 

9  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  904.     The  vote  was  26  to  14. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  1838.          *  Sanborn,  Congressional  Grants,  p.  35. 

5  John  Wentworth,  in  his  Congressional  Reminiscences,  hints  at  some 
vote-getting  in  the  East  by  tariff  concessions;  but  Douglas  insisted  that 
it  was  the  Chicago  branch,  promising  to  connect  with  Eastern  roads, 
which  won  votes  in  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  New  England.  See 
Illinois  State  Register,  March  13,  1851.  The  subject  is  discussed  by 
Sanborn,  Congressional  Grants,  pp.  35-36. 


174  STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS 

States  and  of  the  landless,  intervening  States  of  Ken 
tucky  and  Tennessee  which  had  been  most  effective. 
But  was  all  this  anything  more  than  the  clever  ma 
neuvering  of  an  adroit  politician  in  a  characteristic 
parliamentary  game?  A  central  railroad  through 
Illinois  seemed  likely  to  quell  factional  and  sectional 
quarrels  in  local  politics;  to  merge  Northern  and 
Southern  interests  within  the  Commonwealth ;  and  to 
add  to  the  fiscal  resources  of  State  and  nation.  It  was 
a  good  cause,  but  it  needed  votes  in  Congress.  Douglas 
became  a  successful  procurator  and  reaped  his  reward 
in  increased  popularity. 

There  is  an  aspect  of  this  episode,  however,  which 
lifts  it  above  a  mere  log-rolling  device  to  secure  an 
appropriation.  Here  and  there  it  fired  the  imagination 
of  men.  There  is  abundant  reason  to  believe  that  the 
senior  Senator  from  Illinois  was  not  so  sordid  in 
his  bargaining  for  votes  as  he  seemed.  Above  and 
apart  from  the  commercial  welfare  of  the  Lake 
Eegion,  the  Mississippi  Valley,  and  the  Gulf  Plains, 
there  was  an  end  subserved,  which  lay  in  the  back 
ground  of  his  consciousness  and  which  came  to  ex 
pression  rarely  if  ever.  Practical  men  may  see  visions 
and  dream  dreams  which  they  are  reluctant  to  voice. 
There  was  genuine  emotion  beneath  the  materialism 
of  Senator  Walker's  remarks  (and  he  was  reared  in 
Illinois),  when  he  said:  "Anything  that  improves  the 
connection  between  the  North  and  the  South  is  a 
great  enterprise.  To  cross  parallels  of  latitude,  to 
enable  the  man  of  commerce  to  make  up  his  assorted 
cargo,  is  infinitely  more  important  than  anything  you 
can  propose  within  the  same  parallels  of  latitude.  I 
look  upon  it  as  a  great  chain  to  unite  North  and 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  175 

South. ' n  Senator  Shields  of  Illinois  only  voiced  the  in 
most  thought  of  Douglas,  when  he  exclaimed,  "The 
measure  is  too  grand,  too  magnificent  a  one  to  meet 
with  such  a  fate  at  the  hands  of  Congress.  And  really, 
as  it  is  to  connect  the  North  and  South  so  thoroughly, 
it  may  serve  to  get  rid  of  even  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
and  tie  us  together  so  effectually  that  the  idea  of  sepa 
ration  will  be  impossible/'2 

The  settlement  of  the  West  had  followed  parallels 
of  latitude.  The  men  of  the  Lake  Plains  were  trans 
planted  New  Englanders,  New  Yorkers,  Pennsyl- 
vanians ;  the  men  of  the  Gulf  Plains  came  from  south 
of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line, — pioneers  both,  aggressive, 
bold  in  initiative,  but  alienated  by  circumstances  of 
tremendous  economic  significance.  If  ever  North 
should  be  arrayed  against  South,  the  makeweight  in 
the  balance  would  be  these  pioneers  of  the  Northwest 
and  Southwest.  It  was  no  mean  conception  to  plan  for 
the  "man  of  commerce "  who  would  cross  from  one 
region  to  the  other,  with  his  "assorted  cargo,"3  for 
in  that  cargo  were  the  destinies  of  two  sections  and 
his  greatest  commerce  was  to  consist  in  the  exchange  of 
imponderable  ideas.  The  ideal  which  inspired  Douglas 
never  found  nobler  expression,  than  in  these  words 
with  which  he  replied  to  Webster's  slighting  reference 
to  the  West: 

"There  is  a  power  in  this  nation  greater  than  either 
the  North  or  the  South — a  growing,  increasing,  swell- 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  853.  3  Ibid.,  p.  869. 

'The  economic  significance  of  the  Illinois  Central  Eailroad  appears 
in  a  letter  of  Vice-President  McClellan  to  Douglas  in  1856.  The  manage 
ment  was  even  then  planning  to  bring  sugar  from  Havana  directly  to 
the  Chicago  market,  and  to  take  the  wheat  and  pork  of  the  Northwest  to 
the  West  Indies  via  New  Orleans. 


176  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

ing  power,  that  will  be  able  to  speak  the  law  to  this 
nation,  and  to  execute  the  law  as  spoken.  That  power 
is  the  country  known  as  the  great  West — the  Valley 
of  the  Mississippi,  one  and  indivisible  from  the  gulf 
to  the  great  lakes,  and  stretching,  on  the  one  side  and 
the  other,  to  the  extreme  sources  of  the  Ohio  and  Mis 
souri — from  the  Alleghanies  to  the  Eocky  mountains. 
There,  Sir,  is  the  hope  of  this  nation — the  resting  place 
of  the  power  that  is  not  only  to  control,  but  to  save, 
the  Union.  We  furnish  the  water  that  makes  the 
Mississippi,  and  we  intend  to  follow,  navigate,  and 
use  it  until  it  loses  itself  in  the  briny  ocean.  So  with 
the  St.  Lawrence.  We  intend  to  keep  open  and  enjoy 
both  of  these  great  outlets  to  the  ocean,  and  all  between 
them  we  intend  to  take  under  our  especial  protection, 
and  keep  and  preserve  as  one  free,  happy,  and  unite<J 
people.  This  is  the  mission  of  the  great  Mississippi 
Valley,  the  heart  and  soul  of  the  nation  and  the  con 
tinent."1 

Meantime  Congress  was  endeavoring  to  avert  the 
clash  of  sections  by  other  measures  of  accommodation. 
The  veteran  Clay,  in  his  favorite  role  of  peacemaker, 
had  drafted  a  series  of  resolutions  as  a  sort  of  legis 
lative  programme;  and  with  his  old-time  vigor,  was 
pleading  for  mutual  forbearance.  All  wounds  might 
be  healed,  he  believed,  by  admitting  California  with 
her  free  constitution;  by  organizing  territorial  gov 
ernments  without  any  restriction  as  to  slavery,  in  the 
region  acquired  from  Mexico;  by  settling  the  Texas 
boundary  and  the  Texas  debt  on  a  fair  basis ;  by  pro 
hibiting  the  slave  trade,  but  not  slavery,  in  the  District 
of  Columbia ;  and  by  providing  more  carefully  for  the 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  365. 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  177 

rendition  of  fugitive  slaves.  Clay,  Calhoun,  and 
Webster  had  spoken  with  all  the  weight  of  their  years 
upon  these  propositions,  before  Douglas  was  free  to 
address  the  Senate. 

It  was  characteristic  of  Douglas  that  he  chose  to 
speak  on  the  concrete  question  raised  by  the  applica 
tion  of  California  for  admission  into  the  Union.  His 
opening  words  betrayed  no  elevation  of  feeling,  no 
alarmed  patriotism  transcending  party  lines,  no  great 
moral  uplift.  He  made  no  direct  reference  to  the  state 
of  the  public  mind.  Clay  began  with  an  invocation; 
Webster  pleaded  for  a  hearing,  not  as  a  Massachusetts 
man,  nor  as  a  Northern  man,  but  as  an  American  and 
as  a  Senator,  with  the  preservation  of  the  Union  as 
his  theme;  Douglas  sprang  at  once  to  the  defense  of 
his  party.  With  the  brush  of  a  partisan,  he  sketched 
the  policy  of  Northern  Democrats  in  advocating  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  repudiating  the  insinuations  of 
Webster  that  Texas  had  been  sought  as  a  slave  State. 
He  would  not  admit  that  the  whole  of  Texas  was  bound 
to  be  a  slave  Territory.  By  the  very  terms  of  annexa 
tion,  provision  had  been  made  for  admitting  free  States 
out  of  Texas.  As  for  Webster's  "law  of  nature,  of 
physical  geography, — the  law  of  the  formation  of  the 
earth,'*  from  which  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
derived  so  much  comfort,  it  was  a  pity  that  he  could 
not  have  discovered  that  law  earlier.  The  "law  of 
nature"  surely  had  not  been  changed  materially  since 
the  election,  when  Mr.  Webster  opposed  General  Cass, 
who  had  already  enunciated  this  general  principle.1 

In  his  reply  to  Calhoun,  Douglas  emancipated  him 
self  successfully  from  his  gross  partisanship.  Planting 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  366. 
12 


178  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

himself  firmly  upon  the  national  theory  of  the  Federal 
Union,  he  hewed  away  at  what  he  termed  Calhoun's 
fundamental  error — "the  error  of  supposing  that  his 
particular  section  has  a  right  to  have  a  'due  share  of 
the  territories'  set  apart  and  assigned  to  it."  Calhoun 
had  said  much  about  Southern  rights  and  Northern 
aggressions,  citing  the  Ordinance  of  1787  as  an  in 
stance  of  the  unfair  exclusion  of  the  South  from  the 
public  domain.  Douglas  found  a  complete  refutation 
of  this  error  in  the  early  history  of  Illinois,  where 
slavery  had  for  a  long  time  existed  in  spite  of  the 
Ordinance.  His  inference  from  these  facts  was  bold 
and  suggestive,  if  not  altogether  convincing. 

"These  facts  furnish  a  practical  illustration  of  that 
great  truth,  which  ought  to  be  familiar  to  all  states 
men  and  politicians,  that  a  law  passed  by  the  national 
legislature  to  operate  locally  upon  a  people  not  repre 
sented,  will  always  remain  practically  a  dead  letter 
upon  the  statute  book,  if  it  be  in  opposition  to  the 
wishes  and  supposed  interests  of  those  who  are  to  be 
affected  by  it,  and  at  the  same  time  charged  with  its 
execution.  The  Ordinance  of  1787  was  practically  a 
dead  letter.  It  did  not  make  the  country,  to  which  it 
applied,  practically  free  from  slavery.  The  States 
formed  out  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  did 
not  become  free  by  virtue  of  the  ordinance,  nor  in 
consequence  of  it  ....  [but]  by  virtue  of  their  own 
will."1 

Douglas  was  equally  convinced  that  the  Missouri 
Compromise  had  had  no  practical  effect  upon  slavery. 
So  far  from  depriving  the  South  of  its  share  of  the 
"West,  that  Compromise  had  simply  "allayed  an  un- 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  369-370. 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  179 

fortunate  excitement  which  was  alienating  the  affec 
tions  of  different  portions  of  the  Union."  "Slavery 
was  as  effectually  excluded  from  the  whole  of  that 
country,  by  the  laws  of  nature,  of  climate,  and  pro 
duction,  before,  as  it  is  now,  by  act  of  Congress."1  As 
for  the  exclusion  of  the  South  from  the  Oregon  Terri 
tory,  the  law  of  1848  "did  nothing  more  than  re-enact 
and  affirm  the  law  which  the  people  themselves  had 
previously  adopted,  and  rigorously  executed,  for  the 
period  of  twelve  years. ' '  The  exclusion  of  slavery  was 
the  deliberate  act  of  the  people  of  Oregon:  "it  was 
done  in  obedience  to  that  great  Democratic  principle, 
that  it  is  wiser  and  better  to  leave  each  community 
to  determine  and  regulate  its  own  local  and  domestic 
affairs  in  its  own  way. ' J2 

An  amendment  to  the  Constitution  to  establish  a 
permanent  equilibrium  between  slave  and  free  States, 
Douglas  rightly  characterized  as  "  a  moral  and  physical 
impossibility. "  The  cause  of  freedom  had  steadily 
advanced,  while  slavery  had  receded.  "We  all  look 
forward  with  confidence  to  the  time  when  Delaware, 
Maryland,  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  and  prob 
ably  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee,  will  adopt  a 
gradual  system  of  emancipation.  In  the  meantime," 
said  he,  with  the  exultant  spirit  of  the  exuberant  West, 
"we  have  a  vast  territory,  stretching  from  the  Missis 
sippi  to  the  Pacific,  which  is  rapidly  filling  up  with  a 
hardy,  enterprising,  and  industrious  population,  large 
enough  to  form  at  least  seventeen  new  free  States,  one 
half  of  which  we  may  expect  to  see  represented  in  this 
body  during  our  day.  Of  these  I  calculate  that  four 
will  be  formed  out  of  Oregon,  five  out  of  our  late  ac- 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  370. 


180  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

quisition  from  Mexico,  including  the  present  State  of 
California,  two  out  of  the  territory  of  Minnesota,  and 
the  residue  out  of  the  country  upon  the  Missouri  river, 
including  Nebraska.  I  think  I  am  safe  in  assuming, 
that  each  of  these  will  be  free  territories  and  free 
States  whether  Congress  shall  prohibit  slavery  or  not. 
Now,  let  me  inquire,  where  are  you  to  find  the  slave 
territory  with  which  to  balance  these  seventeen  free 
territories,  or  even  any  one  of  them  ? ' n  Truer  prophecy 
was  never  uttered  in  all  the  long  controversy  over 
the  extension  of  slavery. 

With  a  bit  of  brag,  which  was  perhaps  pardonable 
under  the  circumstances,  Douglas  reminded  the  Senate 
of  his  efforts  to  secure  the  admission  of  California  and 
of  his  prediction  that  the  people  of  that  country  would 
form  a  free  State  constitution.  A  few  months  had 
sufficed  to  vindicate  his  position  at  the  last  session. 
And  yet,  strangely  enough,  the  North  was  still  fearful 
lest  slavery  should  be  extended  to  New  Mexico  and 
Utah.  "  There  is  no  ground  for  apprehension  on  this 
point,"  he  stoutly  contended.  "If  there  was  one  inch 
of  territory  in  the  whole  of  our  acquisition  from 
Mexico,  where  slavery  could  exist,  it  was  in  the  valleys 
of  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin,  within  the  limits- 
of  the  State  of  California.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
that  climate  regulates  this  matter,  and  that  climate 
depends  upon  the  elevation  above  the  sea  as  much  as 
upon  parallels  of  latitude. ' '  Why  then  leave  the  ques 
tion  open  for  further  agitation?  Give  the  people  of 
California  the  government  to  which  they  are  entitled. 
6 '  The  country  is  now  free  by  law  and  in  fact — it  is  free 

r  Globe,   31    Cong.,   1   Sess.,   App.,   p.    371.     I   have    italicized   one 
phrase  because  of  its  interesting  relation  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act. 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  181 

according  to  those  laws  of  nature  and  of  God,  to  which 
the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  alluded,  and  must 
forever  remain  free.  It  will  be  free  under  any  bill  you 
may  pass,  or  without  any  bill  at  all."1 

Though  he  did  not  discuss  the  compromise  resolu 
tions  nor  commit  himself  to  their  support,  Douglas 
paid  a  noble  tribute  to  the  spirit  in  which  they  had 
been  offered.  He  spoke  feelingly  of  "the  self-sacrific 
ing  spirit  which  prompted  the  venerable  Senator  from 
Kentucky  to  exhibit  the  matchless  moral  courage  of 
standing  undaunted  between  the  two  great  hostile 
factions,  and  rebuking  the  violence  and  excesses  of 
each,  and  pointing  out  their  respective  errors,  in  a 
spirit  of  kindness,  moderation,  and  firmness,  which 
made  them  conscious  that  he  was  right."  Clay's  ex 
ample  was  already,  he  believed,  checking  the  tide  of 
popular  excitement.  For  his  part,  he  entertained  no 
fears  as  to  the  future.  "The  Union  will  not  be  put  in 
peril;  California  will  be  admitted;  governments  for 
the  territories  must  be  established ;  and  thus  the  con 
troversy  will  end,  and  I  trust  forever."  A  cheerful 
bit  of  Western  optimism  to  which  the  country  at  large 
was  not  yet  ready  to  subscribe. 

With  his  wonted  aggressiveness  Douglas  had  a  batch 
of  bills  ready  by  March  25th,  covering  the  contro 
verted  question  of  California  and  the  Territories.  The 
origin  of  these  bills  is  a  matter  of  no  little  interest. 
A  group  of  Southern  Whigs  in  the  House,  led  by 
Toombs  and  Stephens  of  Georgia,  had  taken  a  deter 
mined  stand  against  the  admission  of  California,  until 
assurances  were  given  that  concessions  would  be  made 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  373. 


182  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

to  the  South  in  the  organization  of  the  new  Territories.1 
With  both  Toombs  and  Stephens,  Douglas  was  on 
friendly  terms,  despite  their  political  differences. 
Perhaps  it  was  at  his  suggestion  that  McClernand 
of  Illinois  approached  these  gentlemen  with  an  olive 
branch.  At  all  events,  a  conference  was  arranged  at 
the  Speaker's  house,  at  which  Douglas  was  represented 
by  his  friends  McClernand,  Eichardson,  and  Linn 
Boyd  of  Kentucky.  Boyd  was  chairman  of  the  House 
Committee  on  Territories ;  and  Eichardson  a  member 
of  the  committee.  McClernand  announced  that  he  had 
consulted  with  Douglas  and  that  they  were  in  entire 
agreement  on  the  points  at  issue.  Douglas  had  thought 
it  better  not  to  be  present  in  person.  The  Southerners 
stated  their  position  frankly  and  fully.  They  would 
consent  to  the  admission  of  California  only  upon  con 
dition  that,  in  organizing  the  territorial  governments, 
the  power  should  be  given  to  the  people  to  legislate  in 
regard  to  slavery,  and  to  frame  constitutions  with  or 
without  slavery.  Congress  was  to  bind  itself  to 
admit  them  as  States,  without  any  restrictions  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery.  The  wording  of  the  territorial 
bills,  which  would  compass  these  ends,  was  carefully 
agreed  upon  and  put  in  writing.  On  the  basis  of  this 
agreement  Douglas  and  McClernand  drafted  bills  for 
both  the  Senate  and  the  House  Committees.2 

But  the  suggestion  had  already  been  made  and  was 
growing  in  favor,  that  a  select  committee  should  be 
intrusted  with  these  and  other  delicate  questions,  in 

1  Stephens,  Const.  View  of  the  War  between  the  States,  II,  pp.  178  ff . 

2  For  an  account  of  this  interesting  episode,  see  Stephens,  War  Be 
tween  the  States,  II,  pp.  202-204.     Boyd,  not  McClernand,  was  chair 
man   of  the   House   Committee,  but  the   latter  introduced   the  bills  by 
agreement  with  Eichardson. 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  183 

order  to  secure  a  basis  of  compromise  in  the  spirit  of 
Clay's  resolutions.  Believing  that  such  a  course 
would  indefinitely  delay,  and  even  put  in  jeopardy,  the 
measure  that  lay  nearest  to  his  heart, — the  admission 
of  California, — Douglas  resisted  the  appointment  of 
such  a  committee.  If  it  seemed  best  to  join  the  Cali 
fornia  bill  with  others  now  pending,  he  preferred  that 
the  Senate,  rather  than  a  committee,  should  decide 
the  conditions.  But  when  he  was  outvoted,  Douglas 
adopted  the  sensible  course  of  refusing  to  obstruct  the 
work  of  the  Committee  of  Thirteen  by  any  instructions. 
He  was  inclined  to  believe  the  whole  project  a  farce: 
well,  if  it  was,  the  sooner  it  was  over,  the  better;  he 
was  not  disposed  to  wrangle  and  turn  the  farce  into  a 
tragedy.1 

Douglas  was  not  chosen  a  member  of  the  select  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen.  He  could  hardly  expect  to  be ;  but 
he  contributed  not  a  little  to  its  labors,  if  a  tradi 
tional  story  be  true.  In  a  chance  conversation,  Clay, 
who  was  chairman  of  the  committee,  told  Douglas  that 
their  report  would  recommend  the  union  of  his  two 
bills, — the  California  and  the  Territorial  bills, — in 
stead  of  a  bill  of  their  own.  Clay  intimated  that  the 
committee  felt  some  delicacy  about  appropriating 
Douglas's  carefully  drawn  measures.  With  a  courtesy 
quite  equal  to  Clay's,  Douglas  urged  him  to  use  the 
bills  if  it  was  deemed  wise.  For  his  part,  he  did  not 
believe  that  they  could  pass  the  Senate  as  a  single  bill. 
In  that  event,  he  could  then  urge  the  original  bills 
separately  upon  the  Senate.  Then  Clay,  extending 
his  hand,  said,  "You  are  the  most  generous  man 
living.  I  will  unite  the  bills  and  report  them;  but 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sees.,  pp.  662,  757. 


184  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

justice  shall  nevertheless  be  done  you  as  the  real  author 
of  the  measures.'7  A  pretty  story,  and  not  altogether 
improbable.  At  all  events,  the  first  part  of  ' '  the  Omni 
bus  Bill, ' '  reported  by  the  Committee  of  Thirteen,  con 
sisted  of  Douglas's  two  bills  joined  together  by  a 
wafer.1 

There  was  one  highly  significant  change  in  the  terri 
torial  bills  inside  the  Omnibus.  Douglas's  measures 
had  been  silent  on  the  slavery  question ;  these  forbade 
the  territorial  legislatures  to  pass  any  measure  in  re 
spect  to  African  slavery,  restricting  the  powers  of  the 
territorial  legislatures  at  a  vital  point.  Now  on  this 
question  Douglas's  instructions  bound  him  to  an  affirm 
ative  vote.  He  was  in  the  uncomfortable  and  hazard 
ous  position  of  one  who  must  choose  between  his 
convictions,  and  the  retention  of  political  office.  It 
was  a  situation  all  the  more  embarrassing,  because 
he  had  so  often  asserted  the  direct  responsibility  of  a 
representative  to  his  constituents.  He  extricated  him 
self  from  the  predicament  in  characteristic  fashion. 
He  reaffirmed  his  convictions;  sought  to  ward  off  the 
question;  but  followed  instructions  when  he  had  to 
give  his  vote.  He  obeyed  the  letter,  but  violated  the 
spirit  of  his  instructions. 

In  the  debates  on  the  Omnibus  Bill,  Douglas  reiter 
ated  his  theory  of  non-interference  with  the  right  of 
the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves  on  the  question 
of  slavery.  He  was  now  forced  to  further  interesting 
assertions  by  some  pointed  questions  from  Senator 
Davis  of  Mississippi.  "The  Senator  says  that  the  in- 

*See  Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  132-134.  See  also  Douglas's  speech  in 
the  Senate,  Dec.  23,  1851,  and  the  testimony  of  Jefferson  Davis,  Globe, 
31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1830. 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  185 

habitants  of  a  territory  have  a  right  to  decide  what 
their  institutions  shall  be.  When?  By  what  authority! 
How  many  of  them?"  Douglas  replied:  " Without 
determining  the  precise  number,  I  will  assume  that  the 
right  ought  to  accrue  to  the  people  at  the  moment  they 
have  enough  to  constitute  a  government.  .  .  .  Your  bill 
concedes  that  a  representative  government  is  neces 
sary — a  government  founded  upon  the  principles  of 
popular  sovereignty,  and  the  right  of  the  people  to 
enact  their  own  laws;  and  for  this  reason  you  give 
them  a  legislature  constituted  of  two  branches,  like 
the  legislatures  of  the  different  States  and  Territories 
of  the  Union ;  you  confer  upon  them  the  right  to  legis 
late  upon  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  except 
negroes.  Why  except  negroes  f"1  Forced  to  a  further 
explanation,  he  added,  "I  am  not,  therefore,  prepared 
to  say  that  under  the  constitution,  we  have  not  the 
power  to  pass  laws  excluding  negro  slaves  from  the 
territories.  .  .  .  But  I  do  say  that,  if  left  to  myself  to 
carry  out  my  own  opinions,  I  would  leave  the  whole 
subject  to  the  people  of  the  territories  themselves.  .  .  . 
I  believe  it  is  one  of  those  rights  to  be  conceded  to  the 
territories  the  moment  they  have  governments  and 
legislatures  established  for  them."2  In  short,  this  was 
a  policy  dictated  by  expediency,  and  not — as  yet — by 
any  constitutional  necessity.  Douglas  was  not  yet 
ready  to  abandon  the  high  national  ground  of  supreme, 
Federal  control  over  the  Territories. 

But  the  restrictive  clause  in  the  territorial  bills 
satisfied  the  radical  Southerners  as  little  as  it  pleased 
Douglas.  Berrien  wished  to  make  the  clause  more 
precise  by  forbidding  the  territorial  legislatures  "to 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1115.  aIZ>i<f.,  p.  1116. 


186  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

establish  or  prohibit  African  slavery";  but  Hale,  with 
his  preternatural  keenness  for  the  supposed  intrigues 
of  the  slave  power,  believed  that  even  with  these  re 
strictions  the  legislatures  might  still  recognize  slavery 
as  an  already  established  institution ;  and  he  therefore 
moved  to  add  the  word  "allow."  Douglas  voted  con 
sistently;  first  against  Berrien's  amendment,  and 
then,  when  it  carried,  for  Hale's,  hoping  thereby 
to  discredit  the  former.1  Douglas's  own  amendment 
removing  all  restrictions,  was  voted  down.2  True  to 
his  instructions,  he  voted  for  Seward's  proposition  to 
impose  the  Wilmot  Proviso  upon  the  Territories,  but  he 
was  happy  to  find  himself  in  the  minority.3  And  so 
the  battle  went  on,  threatening  to  end  in  a  draw. 

A  motion  to  abolish  and  prohibit  peon  slavery 
elicited  an  apparently  spontaneous  and  sincere  expres 
sion  of  detestation  from  Douglas  of  "this  revolting 
system."  Black  slavery  was  not  abhorrent  to  him ;  but 
a  species  of  slavery  not  confined  to  any  color  or  race, 
which  might,  because  of  a  trifling  debt,  condemn  the 
free  white  man  and  his  posterity  to  an  endless  servi 
tude — this  was  indeed  intolerable.  If  the  Senate  was 
about  to  abolish  black  slavery,  being  unwilling  to  in 
trust  the  territorial  legislature  with  such  measures, 
surely  it  ought  in  all  consistency  to  abolish  also  peon 
age.  But  the  Senate  preferred  not  to  be  consistent.4 

By  the  last  of  July,  the  Omnibus — in  the  words  of 
Benton — had  been  overturned,  and  all  the  inmates 
but  one  spilled  out.  The  Utah  bill  was  the  lucky  sur 
vivor,  but  even  it  was  not  suffered  to  pass  without 
material  alterations.  Clay  now  joined  with  Douglas 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  1134-1135. 

'/bid.,  p.  1135.        'Ibid.,  p.  1134.      4 Ibid.,  pp.  114d-1144. 


MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  137 

to  secure  the  omission  of  the  clause  forbidding  the 
territorial  legislature  to  touch  the  subject  of  slavery. 
In  this  they  finally  succeeded.1  The  bill  was  thus 
restored  to  its  original  form.2 

Everyone  admitted  that  the  compromise  scheme  had 
been  wrecked.  It  was  highly  probable,  however,  that 
with  some  changes  the  proposals  of  the  committee  could 
be  adopted,  if  they  were  considered  separately.  Such 
was  Douglas's  opinion.  The  eventuality  had  occurred 
which  he  had  foreseen.  He  was  ready  for  it.  He  had 
promptly  called  up  his  original  California  bill  and  had 
secured  its  consideration,  when  the  Utah  bill  passed 
to  a  third  reading.  Then  a  bill  to  settle  the  Texan 
boundary  controversy  was  introduced.  The  Senate 
passed  many  weary  days  discussing  first  one  and  then 
the  other.  The  Texas  question  was  disposed  of  on 
August  9th ;  the  California  bill,  after  weathering  many 
storms,  came  to  port  four  days  later;  and  two  days 
afterward,  New  Mexico  was  organized  as  a  Territory 
under  the  same  conditions  as  Utah.  That  is  to  say,  the 
Senate  handed  on  these  bills  with  its  approval  to  the 
lower  house,  where  all  were  voted.  It  remained  only 
to  complete  the  compromise  programme  piece-meal,  by 
abolishing  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
and  by  providing  a  more  stringent  fugitive  slave  law. 
By  the  middle  of  September,  these  measures  had  be 
come  law,  and  the  work  of  Congress  went  to  its  final 
review  before  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion. 

Douglas  voted  for  all  the  compromise  measures  but 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  305-306  j  also  Cutts,  Consti 
tutional  and  Party  Questions,  pp.  80-81. 

*  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  1480-1481.  Rhodes,  History 
of  the  United  States,  I,  p.  181. 


188  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  This  was  an  unfortunate 
omission,  for  many  a  Congressman  had  sought  to 
dodge  the  question.1  The  partisan  press  did  not  spare 
him,  though  he  stated  publicly  that  he  would  have 
voted  for  the  bill,  had  he  not  been  forced  to  absent  him 
self.  Such  excuses  were  common  and  unconvincing. 
Irritated  by  sly  thrusts  on  every  side,  Douglas  at  last 
resolved  to  give  a  detailed  account  of  the  circumstances 
that  had  prevented  him  from  putting  himself  on  record 
in  the  vote.  This  public  vindication  was  made  upon 
the  floor  of  the  Senate  a  year  later.2  A  "  pecuniary 
obligation "  for  nearly  four  thousand  dollars  was 
about  to  fall  due  in  New  York.  Arrangements  which 
he  had  made  to  pay  the  note  miscarried,  so  that  he 
was  compelled  to  go  to  New  York  at  once,  or  suffer  the 
note  to  be  protested.  Upon  the  assurance  of  his  fellow 
senators  that  the  discussion  of  the  bill  would  continue 
at  least  a  week,  he  hastened  to  New  York.  While 
dining  with  some  friends  from  Illinois,  he  was  as 
tounded  to  hear  that  the  bill  had  been  ordered  en 
grossed  for  a  third  reading.  He  immediately  left  the 
city  for  Washington,  but  arrived  too  late.  He  was 
about  to  ask  permission  then  to  explain  his  absence, 
when  his  colleague  dissuaded  him.  Everyone  knew, 
said  Shields,  that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  bill ;  besides, 
very  probably  the  bill  would  be  returned  from  the 
House  with  amendments. 

The  circumstantial  nature  of  this  defense  now  seems 
quite  unnecessary.  After  all,  the  best  refutation  of 
the  charge  lay  in  Douglas's  reputation  for  courageous 
and  manly  conduct.  He  was  true  to  himself  when  he 

Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  pp.  182-183. 
3  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  66. 


MEASUEES  OF  ADJUSTMENT  189 

said,  "The  dodging  of  votes — the  attempt  to  avoid 
responsibility — is  no  part  of  my  system  of  political 
tactics. ' ' 

If  it  is  difficult  to  distribute  the  credit — or  discredit — 
of  having  passed  the  compromise  measures,  it  verges 
on  the  impossible  to  fix  the  responsibility  on  any  indi 
vidual.  Clay  fathered  the  scheme  of  adjustment;  but 
he  did  not  work  out  the  details,  and  it  was  just  this 
matter  of  details  which  aggravated  the  situation.  Clay 
no  longer  coveted  glory.  His  dominant  feeling  was 
one  of  thankfulness.  '  *  It  was  rather  a  triumph  for  the 
Union,  for  harmony  and  concord."  Douglas  agreed 
with  him:  "No  man  and  no  party  has  acquired 
a  triumph,  except  the  party  friendly  to  the  Union." 
But  the  younger  man  did  covet  honor,  and  he  could 
not  refrain  from  reminding  the  Senate  that  he  had 
played  "an  humble  part  in  the  enactment  of  all  these 
great  measures."1  Oddly  enough,  Jefferson  Davis 
condescended  to  tickle  the  vanity  of  Douglas  by  testify 
ing,  "If  any  man  has  a  right  to  be  proud  of  the  success 
of  these  measures,  it  is  the  Senator  from  Illinois."2 

Both  Douglas  and  Toombs  told  their  constituents 
that  Congress  had  agreed  upon  a  great,  fundamental 
principle  in  dealing  with  the  Territories.  Both  spoke 
with  some  degree  of  authority,  for  the  two  territorial 
bills  had  passed  in  the  identical  form  upon  which  they 
had  agreed  in  conference.  But  what  was  this  principle  ? 
Toombs  called  it  the  principle  which  the  South  had 
unwisely  compromised  away  in  1820 — the  principle  of 
non-interference  with  slavery  by  Congress,  the  right 
of  the  people  to  hold  slaves  in  the  common  Territories. 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  1829-1830. 
•Ifcid,  p.  1830. 


190  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

Douglas  called  the  great  principle,  "the  right  of  the 
people  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  internal  con 
cerns  and  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way."1 
So  stated  the  principle  seems  direct  and  simple.  But 
was  Toombs  willing  to  concede  that  the  people  of  a 
Territory  might  exclude  slavery?  He  never  said  so; 
while  Douglas  conceded  both  the  positive  power  to 
exclude,  and  the  negative  power  to  permit,  slavery. 
Here  was  a  discrepancy.2  And  it  was  probably  because 
they  could  not  agree  on  this  point,  that  a  provision 
was  added  to  the  territorial  bills,  providing  that  cases 
involving  title  to  slaves  might  be  appealed  to  the  Su 
preme  Court.  Whether  the  people  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico  might  exclude  slaves,  was  to  be  left  to  the 
judiciary.  In  any  case  Congress  was  not  to  interfere 
with  slavery  in  the  Territories. 

One  other  question  was  raised  subsequently.  Was 
it  intended  that  Congress  should  act  on  this  principle 
in  organizing  future  Territories?  In  other  words,  was 
the  principle,  newly  recovered,  to  be  applied  retro 
actively?  There  was  no  answer  to  the  question  in  1850, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  no  one  thought  to  ask  it. 

1See  his  speech  in  Chicago;  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  169. 

'When  Douglas  reported  the  bills,  he  announced  that  there  was  a 
difference  of  opinion  in  the  committee  on  some  points,  in  regard  to 
which  each  member  reserved  the  right  of  stating  his  own  opinion  and 
of  acting  in  accordance  therewith.  See  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
p.  592. 


CHAPTEE  X 

YOUNG  AMEEICA 

When  Douglas  reached  Chicago,  immediately  after 
the  adjournment  of  Congress,  he  found  the  city  in  an 
uproar.  The  strong  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the  com 
munity  had  been  outraged  by  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 
Eeflecting  the  popular  indignation,  the  Common  Coun 
cil  had  adopted  resolutions  condemning  the  act  as  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution  and  a  transgression  of  the 
laws  of  God.  Those  senators  and  representatives 
who  voted  for  the  bill,  or  "who  basely  sneaked  away 
from  their  seats  and  thereby  evaded  the  question," 
were  stigmatized  as  "fit  only  to  be  ranked  with  the 
traitors,  Benedict  Arnold  and  Judas  Iscariot."  This 
was  indeed  a  sorry  home-coming  for  one  who  believed 
himself  entitled  to  honors. 

Learning  that  a  mass-meeting  was  about  to  indorse 
the  action  of  the  city  fathers,  Douglas  determined  to 
face  his  detractors  and  meet  their  charges.  Entering 
the  hall  while  the  meeting  was  in  progress,  he  mounted 
the  platform,  and  announced  that  on  the  following 
evening  he  would  publicly  defend  all  the  measures  of 
adjustment.  He  was  greeted  with  hisses  and  jeers  for 
his  pains;  but  in  the  end  he  had  the  satisfaction  of 
securing  an  adjournment  until  his  defense  had  been 
heard. 

It  was  infinitely  to  his  credit  that  when  he  con 
fronted  a  hostile  audience  on  the  next  evening,  he 
stooped  to  no  cheap  devices  to  divert  resentment,  but 

191 


192  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

sought  to  approve  his  course  to  the  sober  intelligence 
of  his  hearers.1  It  is  doubtful  if  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  ever  found  a  more  skillful  defender.  The  spirit 
in  which  he  met  his  critics  was  admirably  calculated 
to  disarm  prejudice.  Come  and  let  us  reason  together, 
was  his  plea.  Without  any  attempt  to  ignore  the  most 
obnoxious  parts  of  the  act,  he  passed  directly  to  the 
discussion  of  the  clauses  which  apparently  denied  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  trial  by  jury  to  the  fugitive 
from  service.  He  reminded  his  hearers  that  this  act 
was  supplementary  to  the  Act  of  1793.  No  one  had 
found  fault  with  the  earlier  act  because  it  had  denied 
these  rights.  Both  acts,  in  fact,  were  silent  on  these 
points ;  yet  in  neither  case  was  silence  to  be  construed 
as  a  denial  of  constitutional  obligations.  On  the  con 
trary,  they  must  be  assumed  to  continue  in  full  force 
under  the  act.  Misapprehension  arose  in  these  mat 
ters,  because  the  recovery  of  the  fugitive  slave  was 
not  viewed  as  a  process  of  extradition.  The  act  pro 
vided  for  the  return  of  the  alleged  slave  to  the  State 
from  which  he  had  fled.  Trial  of  the  facts  by  jury 
would  then  follow  under  the  laws  of  the  State,  just  as 
the  fugitive  from  justice  would  be  tried  in  the  State 
where  the  alleged  crime  had  been  committed.  The 
testimony  before  the  original  court  making  the  requi 
sition,  would  necessarily  be  ex  parte,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  escaped  criminal;  but  this  did  not  prevent  a  fair 
trial  on  return  of  the  fugitive.  Eegarding  the  ques 
tion  of  establishing  the  identity  of  the  apprehended 
person  with  the  fugitive  described  in  the  record,  Doug 
las  asserted  that  the  terms  of  the  act  required  proof 

1  The  speech  is  given  in  pan  by  bteahan,  Douglas,  pp.  171  ff :  and 
at  greater  length  by  Flint,  Douglas,  App.,  pp.  3  ff. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  193 

satisfactory  to  the  judge  or  commissioner,  and  not 
merely  the  presentment  of  the  record.  "  Other  and 
further  evidence "  might  be  insisted  upon. 

At  various  times  Douglas  was  interrupted  by  ques 
tions  which  were  obviously  contrived  to  embarrass  him. 
To  all  such  he  replied  courteously  and  with  engaging 
frankness.  "Why  was  it,"  asked  one  of  these  trouble 
some  questioners,  "that  the  law  provided  for  a  fee  of 
ten  dollars  if  the  commissioner  decided  in  favor  of  the 
claimant,  and  for  a  fee  of  only  five  dollars  if  he  decided 
otherwise?  Was  this  not  in  the  nature  of  an  induce 
ment,  a  bribe?"  "I  presume,"  said  Douglas,  "that 
the  reason  was  that  he  would  have  more  labor  to  per 
form.  If,  after  hearing  the  testimony,  the  commis 
sioner  decided  in  favor  of  the  claimant,  the  law  made 
it  his  duty  to  prepare  and  authenticate  the  necessary 
papers  to  authorize  him  to  carry  the  fugitive  home; 
but  if  he  decided  against  him,  he  had  no  such  labor  to 
perform. ' ' 

After  all,  as  Douglas  said  good-naturedly,  all  these 
objections  were  predicated  on  a  reluctance  to  return  a 
slave  to  his  master  under  any  circumstances.  Did  his 
hearers  realize,  he  insisted,  that  refusal  to  do  so  was  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution  ?  And  were  they  willing  to 
shatter  the  Union  because  of  this  feeling?  At  this  point 
he  was  again  interrupted  by  an  individual,  who  wished 
to  know  if  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  were  not 
in  violation  of  the  law  of  God.  "The  divine  law,"  re 
sponded  Douglas,  "does  not  prescribe  the  form  of  gov 
ernment  under  which  we  shall  live,  and  the  character  of 
our  political  and  civil  institutions.  Bevelation  has  not 
furnished  us  with  a  constitution — a  code  of  interna 
tional  law — and  a  system  of  civil  and  municipal  juris- 

13 


194  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

prudence. ' '  If  this  Constitution  were  to  be  repudiated, 
he  begged  to  know,  "who  is  to  be  the  prophet  to  reveal 
the  will  of  God,  and  establish  a  theocracy  for  us?" 

At  the  conclusion  of  his  speech,  Douglas  offered  a 
series  of  resolutions  expressing  the  obligation  of  all 
good  citizens  to  maintain  the  Constitution  and  all  laws 
duly  enacted  by  Congress  in  pursuance  of  the  Consti 
tution.  (Jiiih  a  remarkable  revulsion  of  feeling,  the 
audience  indorsed  these  sentiments  without  a  dissent 
ing  voice,  and  subsequently  repudiated  in  express 
terms  the  resolutions  of  the  Common  Council.1  The 
triumph  of  Douglas  was  complete.  It  was  one  of  those 
rare  instances  where  the  current  of  popular  resent 
ment  is  not  only  deflected,  but  actually  reversed,  by 
the  determination  and  eloquence  of  one  man.) 

There  were  two  groups  of  irreconcilables  to  whom 
such  appeals  were  unavailing — radical  Abolitionists 
at  the  North  and  Southern  Eights  advocates.  Not 
even  the  eloquence  of  Webster  could  make  willing  slave- 
catchers  of  the  anti-slavery  folk  of  Massachusetts.  The 
rescue  of  the  negro  Shadrach,  an  alleged  fugitive 
slave,  provoked  intense  excitement,  not  only  in  New 
England  but  in  Washington.  The  incident  was  deemed 
sufficiently  ominous  to  warrant  a  proclamation  by  the 
President,  counseling  all  good  citizens  to  uphold  the 
law.  Southern  statesmen  of  the  radical  type  saw 
abundant  evidence  in  this  episode  of  a  deliberate  pur 
pose  at  the  North  not  to  enforce  the  essential  features 
of  the  compromise.  Both  Whig  and  Democratic 
leaders,  with  few  exceptions,  roundly  denounced  all 
attempts  to  nullify  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.2  None  was 

1  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  186 ;  Flint,  Douglas,  App.,  p.  30. 

2  Globe,  31  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Debate  of  February  21  and  22,  1851. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  195 

more  vehement  than  Douglas.  He  could  not  regard 
this  Boston  rescue  as  a  trivial  incident.  He  believed 
that  there  was  an  organization  in  many  States  to  evade 
the  law.  It  was  in  the  nature  of  a  conspiracy  against 
the  government.  The  ring-leaders  were  Abolitionists, 
who  were  exciting  the  negroes  to  excesses.  He  was 
utterly  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  senators,  who  had 
sworn  to  obey  and  defend  the  Constitution,  could 
countenance  these  palpable  violations  of  law.1 

In  spite  of  similar  untoward  incidents,  the  vast 
majority  of  people  in  the  country  North  and  South  were 
acquiescing  little  by  little  in  the  settlement  reached  by 
the  compromise  measures.  There  was  an  evident  dis 
position  on  the  part  of  both  "Whig  and  Democratic 
leaders  to  drop  the  slavery  issue.  When  Senator 
Sumner  proposed  a  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act, 
Douglas  deprecated  any  attempt  to  "fan  the  flames 
of  discord  that  have  so  recently  divided  this  great 
people,  "2  intimating  that  Sumner 's  speech  was  in 
tended  to  " operate  upon  the  presidential  election." 
It  ill  became  the  Senator  from  Illinois  to  indulge  in 
such  taunts,  for  no  one,  it  may  safely  be  said,  was 
calculating  his  own  political  chances  more  intently. 
* i  Things  look  well, ' '  he  had  written  to  a  friend,  refer 
ring  to  his  chances  of  securing  the  nomination,  "and 
the  prospect  is  brightening  every  day.  All  that  is 
necessary  now  to  insure  success  is  that  the  northwest 
should  unite  and  speak  out."3 

When  the  Democrats  of  Illinois  proposed  Douglas's 
name  for  the  presidency  in  1848,  no  one  was  disposed 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  312. 

2  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  1120. 
8  MS.  Letter  dated  December  30,  1851. 


196  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

to  take  the  suggestion  seriously,  outside  the  immediate 
circle  of  his  friends.  To  graybeards  there  was  some 
thing  almost  humorous  in  the  suggestion  that  five 
years  of  service  in  Congress  gave  a  young  man  of 
thirty-five  a  claim  to  consideration!  Within  three 
short  years,  however,  the  situation  had  changed  ma 
terially.  Older  aspirants  for  the  chief  magistracy 
were  forced,  with  no  little  alarm,  to  acknowledge  the 
rise  of  a  really  formidable  rival.  By  midsummer  of 
1851,  competent  observers  thought  that  Douglas  had 
the  best  chance  of  winning  the  Democratic  nomination. 
In  the  judgment  of  certain  Whig  editors,  he  was  the 
strongest  man.  It  was  significant  of  his  growing  favor, 
that  certain  Democrats  of  the  city  and  county  of  New 
York  tendered  him  a  banquet,  in  honor  of  his  distin 
guished  services  to  the  party  and  his  devotion  to  the 
Union  during  the  past  two  years. 

Politicians  of  both  parties  shared  the  conviction  that 
unless  the  Whigs  could  get  together, — which  was  un 
likely, — a  nomination  at  the  hands  of  a  national  Demo 
cratic  convention  was  equivalent  to  an  election.  Con 
sequently  there  were  many  candidates  in  the  field.  The 
preliminary  canvass  promised  to  be  eager.  It  was  in 
deed  well  under  way  long  before  Congress  assembled 
in  December,  and  it  continued  actively  during  the 
session.  "The  business  of  the  session, "  wrote  one 
observer  in  a  cynical  frame  of  mind,  "will  consist 
mainly  in  the  manoeuvres,  intrigues,  and  competitions 
for  the  next  Presidency."  Events  justified  the  pre 
diction.  "A  politician  does  not  sneeze  without  refer 
ence  to  the  Presidency,"  observed  the  same  writer, 
some  weeks  after  the  beginning  of  the  session.  "Con- 


YOUNG  AMERICA  197 

gress  does  little  else  but  intrigue  for  the  respective 
candidates.  'n 

Prospective  candidates  who  sat  in  Congress  had  at 
least  this  advantage,  over  their  outside  competitors, — 
they  could  keep  themselves  in  the  public  eye  by  making 
themselves  conspicuous  in  debate.  But  the  wisdom  of 
such  devices  was  questionable.  Those  who  could  not 
point  with  confident  pride  to  their  record,  wisely  chose 
to  remain  non-committal  on  matters  of  personal  his 
tory.  Douglas  was  one  of  those  who  courted  publicity. 
Perhaps  as  a  young  man  pitted  against  older  rivals, 
he  felt  that  he  had  everything  to  gain  thereby  and  not 
much  to  lose.  The  irrepressible  Foote  of  Mississippi 
gave  all  his  colleagues  a  chance  to  mar  their  reputa 
tions,  by  injecting  into  the  deliberations  of  the  Senate 
a  discussion  of  the  finality  of  the  compromise  meas 
ures.2  It  speedily  appeared  that  fidelity  to  the  settle 
ment  of  1850,  from  the  Southern  point  of  view,  con 
sisted  in  strict  adherence  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.3 
This  was  the  touchstone  by  which  Southern  statesmen 
proposed  to  test  their  Northern  colleagues.  Prudence 
whispered  silence  into  many  an  ear;  but  Douglas  for 
one  refused  to  heed  her  admonitions.  Within  three 
weeks  after  the  session  began,  he  was  on  his  feet  de 
fending  the  consistency  of  his  course,  with  an  apparent 
ingenuousness  which  carried  conviction  to  the  larger 
audience  who  read,  but  did  not  hear,  his  declaration  of 
political  faith. 

Two  features  of  this  speech  commended  it  to  Demo- 

1  Mann,  Life  of  Horace  Mann,  pp.  351,  358,  362. 

2  Senator  Foote  introduced  the  subject  December  2,  1851,  by  a  reso 
lution    pronouncing   the    compromise   measures   a  "definite   adjustment 
and  settlement. " 

8  Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  p.  230. 


198  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

crats :  its  recognition  of  the  finality  of  the  compromise, 
and  its  insistence  upon  the  necessity  of  banishing  the 
slavery  question  from  politics.  "The  Democratic 
party,"  he  asseverated,  "is  as  good  a  Union  party  as  I 
want,  and  I  wish  to  preserve  its  principles  and  its  or 
ganization,  and  to  triumph  upon  its  old  issues.  I  desire 
no  new  tests — no  interpolations  into  the  old  creed."1 
For  his  part,  he  was  resolved  never  to  speak  again 
upon  the  slavery  question  in  the  halls  of  Congress. 

But  this  was  after  all  a  negative  programme.  Could 
a  campaign  be  successfully  fought  without  other 
weapons  than  the  well-worn  blunderbusses  in  the 
Democratic  arsenal?  This  was  a  do-nothing  policy, 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  enthusiastic  liberalism 
which  Young  America  was  supposed  to  cherish.  Yet 
Douglas  gauged  the  situation  accurately.  The  bulk 
of  the  party  wished  a  return  to  power  more  than  any 
thing  else.  To  this  end,  they  were  willing  to  toot  for 
old  issues  and  preserve  the  old  party  alignment.  For 
four  years,  the  Democratic  office-hunters  had  not  tasted 
of  the  loaves  and  fishes  within  the  gift  of  the  execu 
tive.  They  expected  liberality  in  conduct,  if  not  liberal 
ism  in  creed,  from  their  next  President.  Douglas 
shared  this  political  hunger.  He  had  always  been  a 
believer  in  rotation  in  office,  and  an  exponent  of  that 
unhappy,  American  practice  of  using  public  office  as 
the  spoil  of  party  victory.  In  this  very  session,  he  put 
himself  on  record  against  permanence  in  office  for  the 
clerks  of  the  Senate,  holding  that  such  positions  should 
fall  vacant  at  stated  intervals.2 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  68. 

2  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1   Sess.,  p.  63.     About  this  time  he  wrote  to  a 
friend,  "I  shall  act  on  the  rule  of  giving  the  offices  to  those  who  fight 
the  battles." 


YOUNG  AMERICA  199 

But  had  Douglas  no  policy  peculiarly  his  own,  to 
qualify  him  for  the  leadership  of  his  party?  Distrustful 
Whigs  accused  him  of  being  willing  to  offer  Cuba  for 
the  support  of  the  South.1  Indeed,  he  made  no  secret 
of  his  desire  to  acquire  the  Pearl  of  the  Antilles.  Still, 
this  was  not  the  sort  of  issue  which  it  was  well  to  drag 
into  a  presidential  campaign.  Like  all  the  other  aspir 
ants  for  the  presidency,  Douglas  made  what  capital  he 
could  out  of  the  visit  of  Kossuth  and  the  question  of 
intervention  in  behalf  of  Hungary.  When  the  matter 
fell  under  discussion  in  the  Senate,  Douglas  formulated 
what  he  considered  should  be  the  policy  of  the  govern 
ment: 

"I  hold  that  the  principle  laid  down  by  Governor 
Kossuth  as  the  basis  of  his  action — that  each  State  has 
a  right  to  dispose  of  her  own  destiny,  and  regulate  her 
internal  affairs  in  her  own  way,  without  the  interven 
tion  of  any  foreign  power — is  an  axiom  in  the  laws  of 
nations  which  every  State  ought  to  recognize  and 
respect.  ...  It  is  equally  clear  to  my  mind,  that  any 
violation  of  this  principle  by  one  nation,  intervening 
for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  liberties  of  another, 
is  such  an  infraction  of  the  international  code  as  would 
authorize  any  State  to  interpose,  which  should  conceive 
that  it  had  sufficient  interest  in  the  question  to  become 
the  vindicator  of  the  laws  of  nations."2 

Cass  had  said  much  the  same  thing,  but  with  less 
virility.  Douglas  scored  on  his  rival  in  this  speech: 
first,  when  he  declared  with  a  bit  of  Chauvinism, 
"I  do  not  deem  it  material  whether  the  reception 
of  Governor  Kossuth  give  offence  to  the  crowned  heads 

1  Mann,  Life  of  Horace  Mann,  p.  354. 
3  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  70. 


200  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

of  Europe,  provided  it  does  not  violate  the  law  of  na 
tions,  and  give  just  cause  of  offence";  and  again, 
scorning  the  suggestion  of  an  alliance  with  England, 
"The  peculiar  position  of  our  country  requires  that 
we  should  have  an  American  policy  in  our  foreign 
relations,  based  upon  the  principles  of  our  own  gov 
ernment,  and  adapted  to  the  spirit  of  the  age."1  There 
was  a  stalwart  conviction  in  these  utterances  which 
gave  promise  of  confident,  masterful  leadership.  These 
are  qualities  which  the  people  of  this  great  democracy 
have  always  prized,  but  rarely  discovered,  in  their 
Presidents. 

It  was  at  this  moment  in  the  canvass  that  the  pro 
moters  of  Douglas's  candidacy  made  a  false  move. 
Taking  advantage  of  the  popular  demonstration  over 
Kossuth  and  the  momentary  diversion  of  public  atten 
tion  from  the  slavery  question  to  foreign  politics,  they 
sought  to  thrust  Douglas  upon  the  Democratic  party 
as  the  exponent  of  a  progressive  foreign  policy.  They 
presumed  to  speak  in  behalf  of  " Young  America,"  as 
against  ' '  Old  Fogyism. ' '  Seizing  upon  the  Democratic 
Review  as  their  organ,  these  progressives  launched 
their  boom  by  a  sensational  article  in  the  January 
number,  entitled  "Eighteen-Fifty-Two  and  the  Presi 
dency."  Beginning  with  an  arraignment  of  Webster's 
un-American  foreign  policy,  the  writer, — or  writers,*— 
called  upon  honest  men  to  put  an  end  to  this  ' '  Quaker 
policy. "  "  The  time  has  come  for  strong,  sturdy,  clear 
headed  and  honest  men  to  act;  and  the  Eepublic  must 
have  them,  should  it  be  compelled,  as  the  colonies  were 
in  1776,  to  drag  the  hero  of  the  time  out  of  a  hole  in  a 
wild  forest,  [sic]  whether  in  Virginia  or  the  illimitable 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  70-71. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  201 

West."  To  inaugurate  such  an  era,  the  presidential 
chair  must  be  filled  by  a  man,  not  of  the  last  genera 
tion,  but  of  this.  He  must  not  be  "  trammeled  with 
ideas  belonging  to  an  anterior  era,  or  a  man  of  merely 
local  fame  and  local  affections,  but  a  statesman  who 
can  bring  young  blood,  young  ideas,  and  young  hearts 
to  the  councils  of  the  Eepublic.  He  must  not  be  a  mere 
general,  a  mere  lawyer,  a  mere  wire-puller.  "Your 
beaten  horse,  whether  he  ran  for  a  previous  presiden 
tial  cup  as  first  or  second, "  will  not  do.  He  must  be 
*a  tried  civilian,  not  a  second  and  third  rate  general.' 
"Withal,  a  practical  statesman,  not  to  be  discomfited 
in  argument,  or  led  wild  by  theory,  but  one  who  has 
already,  in  the  councils  and  tribunals  of  the  nation, 
reared  his  front  to  the  dismay  of  the  shallow  conserva 
tive,  to  the  exposure  of  the  humanitarian  incendiary, 
and  the  discomfiture  of  the  antiquated  rhetorician." 
If  anyone  was  so  dense  as  not  to  recognize  the  por 
trait  here  painted,  he  had  only  to  turn  to  an  article 
entitled  "Intervention,"  to  find  the  name  of  the  hero 
who  was  to  usher  in  the  new  era.  The  author  of  this 
paper  finds  his  sentiments  so  nearly  identical  with  those 
of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  that  he  resorts  to  copious  ex 
tracts  from  his  speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  on  the 
welcome  of  Kossuth,  "entertaining  no  doubt  that  the 
American  people,  the  democracy  of  the  country  will 
endorse  these  doctrines  by  an  overwhelming  majority." 
Still  another  article  in  this  formidable  broadside  from 
the  editors  of  the  Democratic  Review,  deprecated 
Foote's  efforts  to  thrust  the  slavery  issue  again  upon 
Congress,  and  expressed  the  pious  wish  that  Southern 
delegates  might  join  with  Northern  in  the  Baltimore 
convention,  to  nominate  a  candidate  who  would  in 


202  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

future  "evince  the  most  profound  ignorance  as  to  the 
topographical  bearing  of  that  line  of  discord  known 
as  *  Mason  and  Dixon's.'  " 

If  all  this  was  really  the  work  of  Douglas's  friends, — 
and  it  is  more  than  likely, — he  had  reason  to  pray  to 
be  delivered  from  them.  At  best  the  whole  mano3uvre 
was  clumsily  planned  and  wretchedly  executed;  it 
probably  did  him  irreparable  harm.  His  strength  was 
not  sufficient  to  confront  all  his  rivals ;  yet  the  almost 
inevitable  consequence  of  the  odious  comparisons  in  the 
Review  was  combinations  against  him.  The  leading 
article  gave  mortal  offense  in  quarters  where  he  stood 
most  in  need  of  support.1  Douglas  was  quick  to 
detect  the  blunder  and  appreciate  its  dangers  to  his 
prospects.  His  friends  now  began  sedulously  to 
spread  the  report  that  the  article  was  a  ruse  of  the 
enemy,  for  the  especial  purpose  of  spoiling  his  chances 
at  Baltimore.  It  was  alleged  that  proof  sheets  had 
been  found  in  the  possession  of  a  gentleman  in  Wash 
ington,  who  was  known  to  be  hostile  to  Douglas.2  Few 
believed  this  story:  the  explanation  was  too  far 
fetched.  Nevertheless,  one  of  Douglas's  intimates 
subsequently  declared,  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  that 
the  Judge  was  not  responsible  for  anything  that  ap 
peared  in  the  Review,  that  he  had  no  interest  in  or 
control  over  the  magazine,  and  that  he  knew  nothing 
about  the  January  number  until  he  saw  it  in  print.3 
In  spite  of  this  untoward  incident,  Douglas  made  a 

1  See  speech  by  Breckinridge  of  Kentucky  in  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
App.,  pp.  299  ff. 

2  Pike,  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War,  p.  115. 

8  Statement  by  Eichardson  of  Illinois  in  reply  to  J.  C.  Breckinridge 
of  Kentucky,  March  3,  1852.     Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  302. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  203 

formidable  showing.1  He  was  himself  well  pleased  at 
the  outlook.  He  wrote  to  a  friend,  "Prospects  look 
well  and  are  improving  every  day.  If  two  or  three 
western  States  will  speak  out  in  my  favor  the  battle  is 
over.  Can  anything  be  done  in  Iowa  and  Missouri? 
That  is  very  important.  If  some  one  could  go  to  Iowa, 
I  think  the  convention  in  that  State  would  instruct  for 
me.  In  regard  to  our  own  State,  I  will  say  a  word. 
Other  States  are  appointing  a  large  number  of  dele 
gates  to  the  convention,  ....  ought  not  our  State 
to  do  the  same  thing  so  as  to  ensure  the  attendance  of 
most  of  our  leading  politicians  at  Baltimore!  ....  This 
large  number  would  exert  a  great  moral  influence  on 
the  other  delegates."2 

Among  the  States  which  had  led  off  in  his  favor  was 
California;  and  it  was  a  representative  of  California 
who  first  sounded  the  charge  for  Douglas's  cohorts 
in  the  House.  In  any  other  place  and  at  any  other 
time,  Marshall's  exordium  would  have  overshot  the 
mark.  Indeed,  in  indorsing  the  attack  of  the  Review 
on  the  old  fogies  in  the  party,  he  tore  open  wounds 
which  it  were  best  to  let  heal ;  but  gauged  by  the  pre 
vailing  standard  of  taste  in  politics,  the  speech  was 
acceptable.  It  so  far  commended  itself  to  the  editors 
of  the  much-abused  Review  that  it  appeared  in  the 
April  number,  under  the  caption  "The  Progress  of 
Democracy  vs.  Old  Fogy  Eetrograder. " 

To  clear-headed  outsiders,  there  was  something  fac 
titious  in  this  parade  of  enthusiasm  for  Douglas. 

1 ' '  What  with  his  Irish  Organs,  his  Democratic  reviews  and  an  arm 
ful  of  other  strings,  each  industriously  pulled,  he  makes  a  formidable 
show."  Pike,  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War,  p.  115. 

2  MS.  Letter,  February  25,  1852. 


204  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

' i What  most  surprises  one,"  wrote  the  correspondent 
of  the  New  York  Tribune,  "is  that  these  Congressmen, 
with  beards  and  without ;  that  verdant,  flippant,  smart 
detachment  of  Young  America  that  has  got  into  the 
House,  propose  to  make  a  candidate  for  the  Baltimore 
convention  without  consulting  their  masters,  the  people. 
With  a  few  lively  fellows  in  Congress  and  the  aid  of 
the  Democratic  Review,  they  fancy  themselves  equal  to 
the  achievement  of  a  small  job  like  this."1  As  the  first 
of  June  approached,  the  older,  experienced  politicians 
grew  confident  that  none  of  the  prominent  candidates 
could  command  a  two-thirds  vote  in  the  convention. 
Some  had  foreseen  this  months  beforehand  and  had 
been  casting  about  for  a  compromise  candidate.  Their 
choice  fell  eventually  upon  General  Franklin  Pierce 
of  New  Hampshire.  Friends  were  active  in  his  behalf 
as  early  as  April,  and  by  June  they  had  hatched  their 
plot.  It  was  not  their  plan  to  present  his  name  to  the 
convention  at  the  outset,  but  to  wait  until  the  three 
prominent  candidates  (Cass,  Douglas,  and  Buchanan) 
were  disposed  of.  He  was  then  to  be  put  forward  as 
an  available,  compromise  candidate.2 

Was  Douglas  cognizant  of  the  situation?  While  his 
supporters  did  not  abate  their  noisy  demonstrations, 
there  is  some  ground  to  believe  that  he  did  not  share 
their  optimistic  spirit.  At  all  events,  in  spite  of  his 
earlier  injunctions,  only  eleven  delegates  from  Illinois 
attended  the  convention,  while  Pennsylvania  sent  fifty- 
five,  Tennessee  twenty-seven,  and  Indiana  thirty-nine. 

1  Pike,  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War,  p.  118. 

2  Burke-Pierce  Correspondence,  printed  in  American   Historical  Re 
view,  X,  pp.  110  ff.     See  also  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  p. 
248,  and  Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  pp.  251-252. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  205 

Had  Douglas  sent  home  the  intimation  that  the  game 
was  up?  The  first  ballot  told  the  story  of  his  defeat. 
Common  rumor  had  predicted  that  a  large  part  of  the 
Northwest  would  support  him.  Only  fifteen  of  his 
twenty  votes  came  from  that  quarter,  and  eleven  of 
these  were  cast  by  Illinois.  It  was  said  that  the  In 
diana  delegates  would  divert  their  strength  to  him, 
when  they  had  cast  one  ballot  for  General  Lane;  but 
Indiana  cast  no  votes  for  Douglas.  Although  his  total 
vote  rose  to  ninety- two  and  on  the  thirty-first  ballot  he 
received  the  highest  vote  of  any  of  the  candidates,  there 
was  never  a  moment  when  there  was  the  slightest  pros 
pect  of  his  winning  the  prize.1 

On  the  thirty-fifth  ballot  occurred  a  diversion.  Vir 
ginia  cast  fifteen  votes  for  Franklin  Pierce.  The 
schemers  had  launched  their  project.  But  it  was  not 
until  the  forty-ninth  ballot  that  they  started  the  ava 
lanche.  Pierce  then  received  all  but  six  votes.  Two 
Ohio  delegates  clung  to  Douglas  to  the  bitter  end. 
With  the  frank  manliness  which  made  men  forget  his 
less  admirable  qualities,  Douglas  dictated  this  dispatch 
to  the  convention:  "I  congratulate  the  Democratic 
party  upon  the  nomination,  and  Illinois  will  give  Frank 
lin  Pierce  a  larger  majority  than  any  other  State  in 
the  Union, " — a  promise  which  he  was  not  able  to  re 
deem. 

If  Douglas  had  been  disposed  to  work  out  his  politi 
cal  prospects  by  mathematical  computation,  he  would 
have  arrived  at  some  interesting  conclusions  from  the 
balloting  in  the  convention.  Indeed,  very  probably  he 
drew  some  deductions  in  his  own  intuitive  way,  without 
any  adventitious  aid.  Of  the  three  rivals,  Cass  re- 

1  Proceedings  of  Democratic  National  Convention  of  1852. 


206  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

ceived  the  most  widely  distributed  vote,  although 
Douglas  received  votes  from  as  many  States.  While 
they  drew  votes  from  twenty-one  States,  Buchanan  re 
ceived  votes  from  only  fifteen.  Cass  and  Douglas  ob 
tained  their  highest  percentages  of  votes  from  the 
West;  Buchanan  found  his  strongest  support  in  the 
South.  Douglas  and  Cass  received  least  support  in 
the  Middle  States;  Buchanan  had  no  votes  from  the 
West.  But  while  Cass  had,  on  his  highest  total,  thirty 
per  centum  of  the  whole  vote  of  the  Middle  States, 
Douglas  was  relatively  weak  in  the  Middle  States 
rather  than  in  the  South.  On  the  basis  of  these  figures, 
it  is  impossible  to  justify  the  statement  that  he  could 
expect  nothing  in  future  from  New  England  and  Penn 
sylvania,  but  would  look  to  the  South  for  support  for 
the  presidency.1  On  the  contrary,  one  would  say  that 
his  strong  New'  England  following  would  act  as  an 
equipoise,  preventing  too  great  a  dip  toward  the  South 
ern  end  of  the  scales.  Besides,  Douglas's  hold  on  his 
own  constituents  and  the  West  was  contingent  upon 
the  favor  of  the  strong  New  England  element  in  the 
Northwest.  If  this  convention  taught  Douglas  any 
thing,  it  must  have  convinced  him  that  narrow,  sec 
tional  policies  and  undue  favor  to  the  South  would 
never  land  him  in  the  White  House.  To  win  the  prize 
which  he  frankly  coveted,  he  must  grow  in  the  national 
confidence,  and  not  merely  in  the  favor  of  a  single  sec 
tion,  however  powerful.2 

Pledges  aside,  Douglas  was  bound  to  give  vigorous 

1  See  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  pp.  424-425. 

3  To  attribute  to  Douglas,  from  this  time  on,  as  many  writers  have 
done,  a  purpose  to  pander  to  the  South,  is  not  only  to  discredit  his 
political  foresight,  but  to  misunderstand  his  position  in  the  Northwest 
and  to  ignore  his  reiterated  assertions. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  207 

aid  to  the  party  candidates.  His  term  as  senator  was 
about  to  expire.  His  own  fortunes  were  inseparably 
connected  with  those  of  his  party  in  Illinois.  The 
Washington  Union  printed  a  list  of  his  campaign  en 
gagements,  remarking  with  evident  satisfaction  that 
Judge  Douglas  was  "in  the  field  with  his  armor  on." 
His  itinerary  reached  from  Virginia  to  Arkansas,  and 
from  New  York  to  the  interior  counties  of  his  own 
State.  Stray  items  from  a  speech  in  Eichmond  sug 
gest  the  tenuous  quality  of  these  campaign  utterances. 
It  was  quite  clear  to  his  mind  that  General  Scott's  ac 
ceptance  of  the  Whig  nomination  could  not  have  been 
written  by  that  manly  soldier,  but  by  Politician  Scott 
under  the  control  of  General  Seward.  Was  it  wise  to 
convert  a  good  general  into  a  bad  president?  Could 
it  be  true  that  Scott  had  promised  the  entire  patronage 
of  his  administration  to  the  Whigs?  Why,  "there  had 
never  been  a  Democratic  administration  in  this  Union 
that  did  not  retain  at  least  one-third  of  their  political 
opponents  in  office!"1  And  yet,  when  Pierce  had  been 
elected,  Douglas  could  say  publicly,  without  so  much 
as  a  blush,  that  Democrats  must  now  have  the  offices. 
1 '  For  every  Whig  removed  there  should  be  a  competent 
Democrat  put  in  his  place.  .  .  The  best  men  should  be 
selected,  and  everybody  knows  that  the  best  men  voted 
for  Pierce  and  King."2 

The  outcome  of  the  elections  in  Illinois  was  gratify 
ing  save  in  one  particular.  In  consequence  of  the  re- 
districting  of  the  State,  the  Whigs  had  increased  the 
number  of  their  representatives  in  Congress.  But  the 

1  Eichmond  Enquirer,  quoted  in  Illinois  Eegister,  August  3,  1852. 

2  Illinois  State  Eegister,  December  23,  1852. 


208  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

re-election  of  Douglas  was  assured.1  His  hold  upon 
Ms  constituency  was  unshaken.  With  right  good  will 
he  participated  in  the  Democratic  celebration  at  Wash 
ington.  As  an  influential  personage  in  Democratic 
councils  he  was  called  upon  to  sketch  in  broad  lines 
what  he  deemed  to  be  sound  Democratic  policy;  but 
only  a  casual  reference  to  Cuba  redeemed  his  speech 
from  the  commonplace.  "  Whenever  the  people  of  Cuba 
show  themselves  worthy  of  freedom  by  asserting  and 
maintaining  independence,  and  apply  for  annexation, 
they  ought  to  be  annexed ;  whenever  Spain  is  ready  to 
sell  Cuba,  with  the  consent  of  its  inhabitants,  we  ought 
to  accept  it  on  fair  terms ;  and  if  Spain  should  transfer 
Cuba  to  England  or  any  other  European  power,  we 
should  take  and  hold  Cuba  anyhow."2 

Ambition  and  a  buoyant  optimism  seemed  likely  to 
make  Douglas  more  than  ever  a  power  in  Democratic 
politics,  when  a  personal  bereavement  changed  the  cur 
rent  of  his  life.  His  young  wife  whom  he  adored,  the 
mother  of  his  two  boys,  died  shortly  after  the  new  year. 
For  the  moment  he  was  overwhelmed;  and  when  he 
again  took  his  place  in  the  Senate,  his  colleagues  re 
marked  in  him  a  bitterness  and  acerbity  of  temper 
which  was  not  wonted.  One  hostage  that  he  had  given 
to  Fortune  had  been  taken  away,  and  a  certain  reck 
lessness  took  possession  of  him.  He  grew  careless  in 
his  personal  habits,  slovenly  in  his  dress,  disregardful 
of  his  associates,  and  if  possible  more  vehemently 
partisan  in  his  public  utterances. 

1  Washington  Union,  November  30,  1852.     On  a  joint  ballot  of  the 
legislature  Douglas  received   75   out  of   95   votes.      See   Illinois   State 
Register,  January  5,  1853. 

2  Illinois  State  Register,  December  23,  1852. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  209 

It  was  particularly  regrettable  that,  while  Douglas 
was  passing  through  this  domestic  tragedy,  he  should 
have  been  drawn  into  a  controversy  relating  to  British 
claims  in  Central  America.  It  was  rumored  that  Great 
Britain,  in  apparent  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  Clay- 
ton-Bulwer  treaty,  had  taken  possession  of  certain 
islands  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras  and  erected  them  into 
the  colony  of  "the  Bay  Islands."  On  the  heels  of 
this  rumor  came  news  that  aroused  widespread  indig 
nation.  A  British  man-of-war  had  fired  upon  an 
American  steamer,  which  had  refused  to  pay  port  dues 
on  entering  the  harbor  of  Greytown.  Over  this  city, 
strategically  located  at  the  mouth  of  the  San  Juan 
Eiver,  Great  Britain  exercised  an  ill-disguised  control 
as  part  of  the  Mosquito  protectorate. 

In  the  midst  of  the  excited  debate  which  immediately 
followed  in  Congress,  Cass  astonished  everybody  by 
producing  the  memorandum  which  Bulwer  had  given 
Clayton  just  before  the  signing  of  the  treaty.1  In  this 
remarkable  note,  the  British  ambassador  stated  that 
his  government  did  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  re 
nouncing  its  existing  claims  to  Her  Majesty's  settle 
ment  at  Honduras  and  "its  dependencies."  And  Clay 
ton  seemed  to  have  admitted  the  force  of  this  reserva 
tion.  For  his  part,  Cass  made  haste  to  say,  he  wished 
the  Senate  distinctly  to  understand  that  when  he  had 
voted  for  the  treaty,  he  believed  Great  Britain  was 
thereby  prevented  from  establishing  any  such  de 
pendency.  His  object — and  he  had  supposed  it  to  be  the 
object  of  the  treaty— was  to  sweep  away  all  British 
claims  to  Central  America. 

Behind  this  imbroglio  lay  an  intricate  diplomatic 

1  Smith,  Parties  and  Slavery,  pp.  88-93. 
14 


210  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

history  which  can  be  here  only  briefly  recapitulated. 
The  interest  of  the  United  States  in  the  Central 
American  States  dated  from  the  discovery  of  gold  in 
California.  The  value  of  the  control  of  the  means  of 
transportation  across  the  isthmus  at  Nicaragua  be 
came  increasingly  clear,  as  the  gold  seekers  sought  that 
route  to  the  Pacific  coast.  In  the  latter  days  of  his 
administration,  President  Polk  had  sent  one  Elijah 
Hise  to  cultivate  friendly  relations  with  the  Central 
American  States  and  to  offset  the  paramount  influence 
of  Great  Britain  in  that  region.  Great  Britain  was 
already  in  possession  of  the  colony  of  Belize  and  was 
exercising  an  ill-defined  protectorate  over  the  Mosquito 
Indians  on  the  eastern  coast  of  Nicaragua.  In  his 
ardor  to  serve  American  interests,  Hise  exceeded  his 
instructions  and  secured  a  treaty  with  Nicaragua, 
which  gave  to  the  United  States  exclusive  privileges 
over  the  route  of  the  proposed  canal,  on  condition  that 
the  sovereignty  of  Nicaragua  were  guaranteed.  The 
incoming  Whig  administration  would  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Hise  entente,  preferring  to  dispatch  its 
own  agent  to  Central  America.  Though  Squier  suc 
ceeded  in  negotiating  a  more  acceptable  treaty,  the 
new  Secretary  of  State,  Clayton,  was  disposed  to  come 
to  an  understanding  with  Great  Britain.  The  outcome 
of  these  prolonged  negotiations  was  the  famous  Clay- 
ton-Bulwer  treaty,  by  which  both  countries  agreed  to 
further  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  across  the 
isthmus  through  Nicaragua,  and  to  guarantee  its  neu 
trality.  Other  countries  were  invited  to  join  in  secur 
ing  the  neutrality  of  this  and  other  regions  where 
canals  might  be  constructed.  Both  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States  explicitly  renounced  any  "dominion 


YOUNG  AMERICA  211 

over  Nicaragua,  Costa  Eica,  the  Mosquito  coast  or  any 
part  of  Central  America."1 

The  opposition  would  have  been  something  less  than 
human,  if  they  had  not  seized  upon  the  occasion  to 
discredit  the  outgoing  administration.  Cass  had  al 
ready  introduced  a  resolution  reaffirming  the  terms 
of  the  famous  Monroe  message  respecting  European 
colonization  in  America,  and  thus  furnishing  the  pre 
text  for  partisan  attacks  upon  Secretary  of  State 
Clayton.  But  Cass  unwittingly  exposed  his  own  head 
to  a  sidelong  blow  from  his  Democratic  rival  from 
Illinois,  who  affected  the  role  of  Young  America  once 
more. 

It  is  impossible  to  convey  in  cold  print  the  biting 
sarcasm,  the  vindictive  bitterness,  and  the  reckless 
disregard  of  justice,  with  which  Douglas  spoke  on 
February  14th.  He  sneered  at  this  new  profession 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Why  keep  repeating  this 
talk  about  a  policy  which  the  United  States  has  almost 
invariably  repudiated  in  fact?  Witness  the  Oregon 
treaty !  "  With  an  avowed  policy,  of  thirty  years'  stand 
ing  that  no  future  European  colonization  is  to  be  per 
mitted  in  America — affirmed  when  there  was  no  oppor 
tunity  for  enforcing  it,  and  abandoned  whenever  a 
case  was  presented  for  carrying  it  into  practical  effect 
— is  it  now  proposed  to  beat  another  retreat  under 
cover  of  terrible  threats  of  awful  consequences  when 
the  offense  shall  be  repeated?  'Henceforth'  no  'future' 
European  colony  is  to  be  planted  in  America  'with  our 
consent!'  It  is  gratifying  to  learn  that  the  United 
States  are  never  going  to  'consent'  to  the  repudiation 

1  MaeDonald,  Select  Documents  of  the  History  of  the  United  States, 
No.  77. 


212  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

of  the  Monroe  doctrine  again.  No  more  Clayton  and 
Bulwer  treaties;  no  more  British  ' alliances'  in  Central 
America,  New  Granada,  or  Mexico;  no  more  resolu 
tions  of  oblivion  to  protect  'existing  rights!'  Let  Eng 
land  tremble,  and  Europe  take  warning,  if  the  offense 
is  repeated.  ' Should  the  attempt  be  made,'  says  the 
resolution,  'it  will  leave  the  United  States  free  to  adopt 
such  measures  as  an  independent  nation  may  justly 
adopt  in  defense  of  its  rights  and  honor.'  Are  not  the 
United  States  now  free  to  adopt  such  measures  as  an 
independent  nation  may  justly  adopt  in  defense  of  its 
rights  and  honor?  Have  we  not  given  the  notice?  Is 
not  thirty  years  sufficient  notice?"1 

He  taunted  Clayton  with  having  suppressed  the  Hise 
treaty,  which  secured  exclusive  privileges  for  the 
United  States  over  the  canal  route,  in  order  to  form  a 
partnership  with  England  and  other  monarchical 
powers  of  Europe.  * '  Exclusive  privileges ' '  were  vsacri- 
ficed  to  lay  the  foundation  of  an  alliance  by  which 
European  intervention  in  American  affairs  was  recog 
nized  as  a  right! 

It  was  generally  known  that  Douglas  had  opposed 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  ;2  but  the  particular  ground 
of  his  opposition  had  been  only  surmised.  Deeming 
the  injunction  of  secrecy  removed,  he  now  emphatically 
registered  his  protest  against  the  whole  policy  of  pledg 
ing  the  faith  of  the  Republic,  not  to  do  what  in  the 
future  our  interests,  duty,  and  even  safety,  might  com 
pel  us  to  do.  The  time  might  come  when  the  United 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  170. 

2  Douglas  declined  to  serve  on  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Af 
fairs,  because  he  was  opposed  to  the  policy  of  the  majority,  so  he  after 
ward  intimated.     Globe,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  268. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  213 

States  would  wish  to  possess  some  portion  of  Central 
America.  Moreover,  the  agreement  not  to  fortify  any 
part  of  that  region  was  not  reciprocal,  so  long  as  Great 
Britain  held  Jamaica  and  commanded  the  entrance  to 
the  canal.  He  had  always  regarded  the  terms  of 
the  British  protectorate  over  the  Mosquito  coast  as 
equivocal ;  but  the  insuperable  objection  to  the  treaty 
was  the  European  partnership  to  which  the  United 
States  was  pledged.  The  two  parties  not  only  con 
tracted  to  extend  their  protection  to  any  other  practi 
cable  communications  across  the  isthmus,  whether  by 
canal  or  railway,  but  invited  all  other  powers  to  become 
parties  to  these  provisions.  What  was  the  purport  of 
this  agreement,  if  it  did  not  recognize  the  right  of 
European  powers  to  intervene  in  American  affairs; 
what  then  became  of  the  vaunted  Monroe  Doctrine? 

To  the  undiplomatic  mind  of  Douglas,  our  proper 
course  was  as  clear  as  day.  Insist  upon  the  with 
drawal  of  Great  Britain  from  the  Bay  Islands !  "If  we 
act  with  becoming  discretion  and  firmness,  I  have  no 
apprehension  that  the  enforcement  of  our  rights  will 
lead  to  hostilities."  And  then  let  the  United  States  free 
itself  from  entangling  alliances  by  annulling  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty.1  Surely  this  was  simplicity 
itself. 

The  return  of  Clayton  to  the  Senate,  in  the  special 
session  of  March,  brought  the  accused  before  his  ac 
cusers.  An  acrimonious  debate  followed,  in  the  course 
of  which  Douglas  was  forced  to  state  his  own  position 
more  explicitly.  He  took  his  stand  upon  the  Hise 
treaty.  Had  the  exclusive  control  of  the  canal  been 
given  into  our  hands,  and  the  canal  thrown  open  to  the 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  173. 


214  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

commerce  of  all  nations  upon  our  own  terms,  we  would 
have  had  a  right  which  would  have  been  ample  security 
for  every  nation  under  heaven  to  keep  peace  with  the 
United  States.  "We  could  have  fortified  that  canal 
at  each  end,  and  in  time  of  war  could  have  closed  it 
against  our  enemies. "  But,  suggested  Clayton,  Euro 
pean  powers  would  never  have  consented  to  such  ex 
clusive  control.  "Well,  Sir,"  said  Douglas,  "I  do  not 
know  that  they  would  have  consented :  but  of  one  thing 
I  am  certain  I  would  never  have  asked  their  consent. ' n 
And  such  was  the  temper  of  Young  America  that  this 
sledge  hammer  diplomacy  was  heartily  admired. 

It  was  in  behalf  of  Young  America  again,  that  Doug 
las  gave  free  rein  to  his  vision  of  national  destiny. 
Disclaiming  any  immediate  wish  for  tropical  expan 
sion  in  the  direction  of  either  Mexico  or  Central 
America,  he  yet  contended  that  no  man  could  foresee 
the  limits  of  the  Eepublic.  "You  may  make  as  many 
treaties  as  you  please  to  fetter  the  limits  of  this  giant 
Eepublic,  and  she  will  burst  them  all  from  her,  and  her 
course  will  be  onward  to  a  limit  which  I  will  not  venture 
to  prescribe."  Why,  then,  pledge  our  faith  never  to 
annex  any  more  of  Mexico  or  any  portion  of  Central 
America?2 

For  this  characteristic  Chauvinism  Douglas  paid 
the  inevitable  penalty.  Clayton  promptly  ridiculed  this 
attitude.  "He  is  fond  of  boasting  ....  that  we  are  a 
giant  Eepublic ;  and  the  Senator  himself  is  said  to  be 
a  *  little  giant;'  yes,  sir,  quite  a  giant,  and  everything 
that  he  talks  about  in  these  latter  days  is  gigantic.  He 
has  become  so  magnificent  of  late,  that  he  cannot  con- 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  Special  Sess.,  p.  261. 
9  Ibid.,  p.  262. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  215 

sent  to  enter  into  a  partnership  on  equal  terms  with 
any  nation  on  earth — not  he !  He  must  have  the  exclu 
sive  right  in  himself  and  our  noble  selves  I"1 

It  was  inevitable,  too,  that  Douglas  should  provoke 
resentment  on  his  own  side  of  the  chamber.  Cass  was 
piqued  by  his  slurs  upon  Old  Fogyism  and  by  his  tren 
chant  criticism  of  the  policy  of  reasserting  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.  Badger  spoke  for  the  other  side  of  the 
house,  when  he  declared  that  Douglas  spoke  "with  a 
disregard  to  justice  and  fairness  which  I  have  seldom 
seen  him  exhibit."  It  is  lamentably  true  that  Douglas 
exhibited  his  least  admirable  qualities  on  such  occa 
sions.  Hatred  for  Great  Britain  was  bred  in  his  bones. 
Possibly  it  was  part  of  his  inheritance  from  that  grand 
father  who  had  fought  the  Britishers  in  the  wars  of  the 
Eevolution.  Possibly,  too,  he  had  heard  as  a  boy,  in 
his  native  Vermont  village,  tales  of  British  perfidy  in 
the  recent  war  of  1812.  At  all  events,  he  was  utterly 
incapable  of  anything  but  bitter  animosity  toward 
Great  Britain.  This  unreasoning  prejudice  blinded  his 
judgment  in  matters  of  diplomacy,  and  vitiated  his 
utterances  on  questions  of  foreign  policy. 

Eeplying  to  Clayton,  he  said  contemptuously,  "I  do 
not  sympathize  with  that  feeling  which  the  Senator 
expressed  yesterday,  that  it  was  a  pity  to  have  a  dif 
ference  with  a  nation  so  friendly  to  us  as  England. 
Sir,  I  do  not  see  the  evidence  of  her  friendship.  It  is 
not  in  the  nature  of  things  that  she  can  be  our  friend. 
It  is  impossible  that  she  can  love  us.  I  do  not  blame 
her  for  not  loving  us.  Sir,  we  have  wounded  her  vanity 
and  humbled  her  pride.  She  can  never  forgive  us."2 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,   Special  Sess.,  p.   276. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  262. 


216  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

And  when  Senator  Butler  rebuked  him  for  this  ani 
mosity,  reminding  him  that  England  was  after  all  our 
mother  country,  to  whom  we  were  under  deeper  obliga 
tions  than  to  any  other,  Douglas  retorted,  "She  is  and 
ever  has  been  a  cruel  and  unnatural  mother."  Yes, 
he  remembered  the  illustrious  names  of  Hampden, 
Sidney,  and  others;  but  he  remembered  also  that  "the 
same  England  which  gave  them  birth,  and  should  have 
felt  a  mother's  pride  and  love  in  their  virtues  and  ser 
vices,  persecuted  her  noble  sons  to  the  dungeon  and  the 
scaffold."  "He  speaks  in  terms  of  delight  and  grati 
tude  of  the  copious  and  refreshing  streams  which  Eng 
lish  literature  and  science  are  pouring  into  our  country 
and  diffusing  throughout  the  land.  Is  he  not  aware 
that  nearly  every  English  book  circulated  and  read  in 
this  country  contains  lurking  and  insidious  slanders 
and  libels  upon  the  character  of  our  people  and  the  in 
stitutions  and  policy  of  our  Government!"1 

For  Europe  in  general,  Douglas  had  hardly  more 
reverence.  With  a  positiveness  which  in  such  matters 
is  sure  proof  of  provincialism,  he  said,  "Europe  is 
antiquated,  decrepit,  tottering  on  the  verge  of  dissolu 
tion.  When  you  visit  her,  the  objects  which  enlist  your 
highest  admiration  are  the  relics  of  past  greatness; 
the  broken  columns  erected  to  departed  power.  It  is 
one  vast  graveyard,  where  you  find  here  a  tomb  indi 
cating  the  burial  of  the  arts ;  there  a  monument  mark 
ing  the  spot  where  liberty  expired;  another  to  the 
memory  of  a  great  man,  whose  place  has  never  been 
filled.  The  choicest  products  of  her  classic  soil  consist 
in  relics,  which  remain  as  sad  memorials  of  departed 
glory  and  fallen  greatness !  They  bring  up  the  mern- 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  Special  Sess.,  p.  275. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  217 

ories  of  the  dead,  but  inspire  no  hope  for  the  living! 
Here  everything  is  fresh,  blooming,  expanding  and 
advancing. ' n 

And  yet,  soon  after  Congress  adjourned,  he  set  out 
to  visit  this  vast  graveyard.  It  was  even  announced 
that  he  proposed  to  spend  five  or  six  months  in  study 
ing  the  different  governments  of  Europe.  Doubtless 
he  regarded  this  study  as  of  negative  value  chiefly. 
From  the  observation  of  relics  of  departed  grandeur, 
a  live  American  would  derive  many  a  valuable  lesson. 
His  immediate  destination  was  the  country  against 
which  he  had  but  just  thundered.  Small  wonder  if  a 
cordial  welcome  did  not  await  him.  His  admiring 
biographer  records  with  pride  that  he  was  not  pre 
sented  to  Queen  Victoria,  though  the  opportunity  was 
afforded.2  It  appears  that  this  stalwart  Democrat 
would  not  so  far  demean  himself  as  to  adopt  the  con 
ventional  court  dress  for  the  occasion.  He  would  not 
stoop  even  to  adopt  the  compromise  costume  of  Am 
bassador  Buchanan,  and  add  to  the  plain  dress  of  an 
American  citizen,  a  short  sword  which  would  dis 
tinguish  him  from  the  court  lackeys. 

At  St.  Petersburg,  his  objections  to  court  dress  were 
more  sympathetically  received.  Count  Nesselrode,  who 
found  this  uncompromising  American  possessed  of 
redeeming  qualities,  put  himself  to  no  little  trouble  to 
arrange  an  interview  with  the  Czar.  Douglas  was 
finally  put  under  the  escort  of  Baron  Stoeckle,  who  was 
a  member  of  the  Eussian  embassy  at  Washington,  and 
conducted  to  the  field  where  the  Czar  was  reviewing 
the  army.  Mounted  upon  a  charger  of  huge  dimen- 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  Special  Sess.,  p.  273. 
"Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  443-444. 


218  STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS 

sions,  the  diminutive  Douglas  was  brought  into  the 
presence  of  the  Czar  of  all  the  Eussias.1  It  is  said  that 
Douglas  was  the  only  American  who  witnessed  these 
manoeuvres;  but  Douglas  afterward  confessed,  with 
a  laugh  at  his  own  expense,  that  the  most  conspicuous 
feature  of  the  occasion  for  him  was  the  ominous  evo 
lutions  of  his  horse's  ears,  for  he  was  too  short  of 
limb  and  too  inexperienced  a  horseman  to  derive  any 
satisfaction  from  the  military  pageant.2 

We  are  assured  by  his  devoted  biographer,  Sheahan, 
that  Douglas  personally  examined  all  the  public  in 
stitutions  of  the  capital  during  his  two  weeks'  stay  in 
St.  Petersburg ;  and  that  he  sought  a  thorough  knowl 
edge  of  the  manners,  laws,  and  government  of  that 
city  and  the  Empire.3  No  doubt,  with  his  nimble  per> 
ception  he  saw  much  in  this  brief  sojourn,  for  Eussia 
had  always  interested  him  greatly,  and  he  had  read 
its  history  with  more  than  wonted  care.4  He  was  not 
content  to  follow  merely  the  beaten  track  in  central 
and  western  Europe ;  but  he  visited  also  the  Southeast 
where  rumors  of  war  were  abroad.  From  St.  Peters 
burg,  he  passed  by  carriage  through  the  interior  to  the 
Crimea  and  to  Sebastopol,  soon  to  be  the  storm  centre 
of  war.  In  the  marts  of  Syria  and  Asia  Minor,  he 
witnessed  the  contact  of  Orient  and  Occident.  In  the 
Balkan  peninsula  he  caught  fugitive  glimpses  of  the 
rule  of  the  unspeakable  Turk.5 

1  Sheahan,   Douglas,   pp.    444-445. 

"Major  McConnell  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Illinois  Historical 
Society,  IV,  p.  48;  Linder,  Early  Bench  and  Bar  of  Illinois,  pp.  80-82. 

1  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  444. 

4  Conversation  with  Judge  E.  M.  Douglas. 

8  Washington  Union,  and  Illinois  State  'Register,  May  26  and  Novem 
ber  6,  1853. 


YOUNG  AMERICA  219 

No  man  with  the  quick  apperceptive  powers  of 
Douglas  could  remain  wholly  untouched  by  the  sights 
and  sounds  that  crowd  upon  even  the  careless  traveler 
in  the  East;  yet  such  experiences  are  not  formative 
in  the  character  of  a  man  of  forty.  Douglas  was  still 
Douglas,  still  American,  still  Western  to  the  core,  when 
he  set  foot  on  native  soil  in  late  October.  He  was  not 
a  larger  man  either  morally  or  intellectually;  but  he 
had  acquired  a  fund  of  information  which  made  him  a 
readier,  and  possibly  a  wiser,  man.  And  then,  too,  he 
was  refreshed  in  body  and  mind.  More  than  ever  he 
was  bold,  alert,  persistent,  and  resourceful.  In  his 
compact,  massive  frame,  were  stored  indomitable  pluck 
and  energy;  and  in  his  heart  the  spirit  of  ambition 
stirred  mightily. 


CHAPTEE  XI 
THE  KANSAS-NEBKASKA  ACT 

With  the  occupation  of  Oregon  and  of  the  gold  fields 
of  California,  American  colonization  lost  temporarily 
its  conservative  character.  That  heel-and-toe  process, 
which  had  hitherto  marked  the  occupation  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  Valley,  seemed  too  slow  and  tame;  the  pace 
had  lengthened  and  quickened.  Consequently  there 
was  a  great  waste — No-man's-land — between  the  west 
ern  boundary  of  Iowa,  Missouri  and  Arkansas,  and  the 
scattered  communities  on  the  Pacific  slope.  It  was 
a  waste  broken  only  by  the  presence  of  the  Mormons 
in  Utah,  of  nomadic  tribes  of  Indians  on  the  plains, 
and  of  tribes  of  more  settled  habits  on  the  eastern 
border.  In  many  cases  these  lands  had  been  given  to 
Indian  tribes  in  perpetuity,  to  compensate  for  the  loss 
of  their  original  habitat  in  some  of  the  Eastern  States. 
With  strange  lack  of  foresight,  the  national  govern 
ment  had  erected  a  barrier  to  its  own  development. 

As  early  as  1844,  Douglas  had  proposed  a  territorial 
government  for  the  region  of  which  the  Platte,  or  Neb 
raska,  was  the  central  stream.1  The  chief  trail  to 
Oregon  traversed  these  prairies  and  plains.  If  the 
United  States  meant  to  assert  and  maintain  its  title  to 
Oregon,  some  sort  of  government  was  needed  to  protect 
emigrants,  and  to  supply  a  military  basis  for  such 
forces  as  should  be  required  to  hold  the  disputed  coun- 

1  House  Bill  No.  444;  28  Cong.,  2  Sess. 

220 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  221 

try.  Though  the  Secretary  of  "War  indorsed  this  view,1 
Congress  was  not  disposed  to  anticipate  the  occupation 
of  the  prairies.  Nebraska  became  almost  a  hobby  with 
Douglas.  He  introduced  a  second  bill  in  1848,2  and  a 
third  in  1852,3  all  designed  to  prepare  the  way  for 
settled  government. 

The  last  of  these  was  unique.  Its  provisions  were 
designed,  no  doubt,  to  meet  the  unusual  conditions  pre 
sented  by  the  overland  emigration  to  California.  Mili 
tary  protection  for  the  emigrant,  a  telegraph  line,  and 
an  overland  mail  were  among  the  ostensible  objects. 
The  military  force  was  to  be  a  volunteer  corps,  which 
would  construct  military  posts  and  at  the  same  time 
provide  for  its  own  maintenance  by  tilling  the  soil.  At 
the  end  of  three  years  these  military  farmers  were 
each  to  receive  640  acres  along  the  route,  and  thus 
form  a  sort  of  military  colony.4  Douglas  pressed  the 
measure  with  great  warmth ;  but  Southerners  doubted 
the  advisability  of  "encouraging  new  swarms  to  leave 
the  old  hives,"  not  wishing  to  foster  an  expansion  in 
which  they  could  not  share,5  nor  forgetting  that  this 
was  free  soil  by  the  terms  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
All  sorts  of  objections  were  trumped  up  to  discredit  the 
bill.  Douglas  was  visibly  irritated.  "Sir,"  he  ex 
claimed,  "it  looks  to  me  as  if  the  design  was  to  deprive 
us  of  everything  like  protection  in  that  vast  region.  .  .  . 

Executive  Docs.,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  124. 

2  House  Bill,  No.  170;    30  Cong.,  1  Sess. 

8  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1161. 

•Iftid.,  pp.  1684-1685. 

5I6id?.,  p.  1760.  Clingman  afterward  admitted  that  the  Southern 
opposition  was  motived  by  reluctance  to  admit  new  free  Territories. 
"This  feeling  was  felt  rather  than  expressed  in  words. "  Clingman, 
Speeches  and  Writings,  p.  334. 


222  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

I  must  remind  the  Senate  again  that  the  pointing  out 
of  these  objections,  and  the  suggesting  of  these  large 
expenditures  show  us  that  we  are  to  expect  no  protec 
tion  at  all;  they  evince  direct,  open  hostility  to  that 
section  of  the  country."1 

It  was  the  fate  of  the  Nebraska  country  to  be  bound 
up  more  or  less  intimately  with  the  agitation  in  favor 
of  a  Pacific  railroad.  All  sorts  of  projects  were  in  the 
air.  Asa  Whitney  had  advocated,  in  season  and  out, 
a  railroad  from  Lake  Michigan  to  some  available 
harbor  on  the  Pacific.  Douglas  and  his  Chicago  friends 
were  naturally  interested  in  this  enterprise.  Benton, 
on  the  other  hand,  jealous  for  the  interests  of  St.  Louis, 
advocated  a  "  National  Central  Highway"  from  that 
city  to  San  Francisco,  with  branches  to  other  points. 
The  South  looked  forward  to  a  Pacific  railroad  which 
should  follow  a  southern  route.2  A  northern  or  central 
route  would  inevitably  open  a  pathway  through  the 
Indian  country  and  force  on  the  settlement  and  organi 
zation  of  the  territory  ;3  the  choice  of  a  southern  route 
would  in  all  likelihood  retard  the  development  of 
Nebraska. 

While  Congress  was  shirking  its  duty  toward  Neb 
raska,  the  Wyandot  Indians,  a  civilized  tribe  occupy 
ing  lands  in  the  fork  of  the  Kansas  and  Missouri  rivers, 
repeatedly  memorialized  Congress  to  grant  them  a  ter 
ritorial  government.4  Dogged  perseverance  may  be 
an  Indian  characteristic,  but  there  is  reason  to  believe 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1752. 
a  See  Davis,  Union  Pacific  Railway,  Chap.  3. 

•  See  Benton  'a  remarks  in  the  House,  Globe,  31  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  56. 
*Connelley,  The  Provisional  Government  of  the  Nebraska  Territory, 
published  by  the  Nebraska  State  Historical  Society,  pp.  23-24. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBEASKA  ACT  223 

that  outside  influences  were  working  upon  them. 
Across  the  border,  in  Missouri,  they  had  a  staunch 
friend  in  ex-Senator  Benton,  who  had  reasons  of  his 
own  for  furthering  their  petitions.  In  1850,  the  opposi 
tion,  which  had  been  steadily  making  headway  against 
him,  succeeded  in  deposing  the  old  parliamentarian  and 
electing  a  Whig  as  his  successor  in  the  Senate.  The 
coup  d'etat  was  effected  largely  through  the  efforts 
of  an  aggressive  pro-slavery  faction  led  by  Senator 
David  E.  Atchison.1  It  was  while  his  fortunes  were 
waning  in  Missouri,  that  Benton  interested  himself  in 
the  Central  Highway  and  in  the  Wyandots.  His  pro 
ject,  indeed,  contemplated  grants  of  land  along  the 
route,  when  the  Indian  title  should  be  extinguished.2 
Possibly  it  was  Benton 's  purpose  to  regain  his  footing 
in  Missouri  politics  by  advocating  this  popular  meas 
ure;  possibly,  as  his  opponents  hinted,  he  looked  for 
ward  to  residing  in  the  new  Territory  and  some  day 
becoming  its  first  senator;  at  all  events,  he  came  to 
look  upon  the  territorial  organization  of  .Nebraska  as 
an  integral  part  of  his  larger  railroad  project. 

In  this  wise,  Missouri  factional  quarrels,  Indian 
titles,  railroads,  territorial  government  for  Nebraska, 
and  land  grants  had  become  hopelessly  tangled,  when 
another  bill  for  the  organization  of  Nebraska  came  be 
fore  Congress  in  February,  1853.3  The  measure  was 
presented  by  Willard  P.  Hall,  a  representative  from 
Missouri,  belonging  to  the  Benton  faction.  His  advo 
cacy  of  the  bill  in  the  House  throws  a  flood  of  light  on 
the  motives  actuating  both  friends  and  opponents. 

1Connelley,  Provisional  Government,  p.  28. 

3  Globe,  31  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  56-58. 

8  House  Bill  No.  353;    32  Cong.,  2  Sess. 


224  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

Representatives  from  Texas  evinced  a  poignant  concern 
for  the  rights  of  the  poor  Indian.  Had  he  not  heen 
given  these  lands  as  a  permanent  home,  after  being 
driven  from  the  hunting  ground  of  his  fathers  I  To  be 
sure,  there  was  a  saving  clause  in  the  bill  which  prom 
ised  to  respect  Indian  claims,  but  zeal  for  the  Indian 
still  burned  hotly  in  the  breasts  of  these  Texans. 
Finally,  Hall  retorted  that  Texas  had  for  years  been 
trying  to  drive  the  wild  tribes  from  her  borders,  so  as 
to  make  the  northern  routes  unsafe  and  thus  to  force 
the  tide  of  emigration  through  Texas.1  "Why,  every 
body  is  talking  about  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific.  In  the 
name  of  God,  how  is  the  railroad  to  be  made,  if  you 
will  never  let  people  live  on  the  lands  through  which 
the  road  passes?"2 

In  other  words,  the  concern  of  the  Missourians  was 
less  for  the  unprotected  emigrant  than  for  the  great 
central  railroad;  while  the  South  cared  less  for  the 
Indian  than  for  a  southern  railroad  route.  The  Neb 
raska  bill  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  which  suggests 
the  sectional  differences  involved  in  it.3 

It  was  most  significant  that,  while  a  bill  to  organize 
the  Territory  of  Washington  passed  at  once  to  a  third 
reading  in  the  Senate,  the  Nebraska  bill  hung  fire. 
Douglas  made  repeated  efforts  to  gain  consideration 
for  it ;  but  the  opposition  seems  to  have  been  motived 
here  as  it  was  in  the  House.4  On  the  last  day  of  the 
session,  the  Senate  entered  upon  an  irregular,  desul 
tory  debate,  without  a  quorum.  Douglas  took  an  un 
willing  part.  He  repeated  that  the  measure  was  "very 
dear  to  his  heart,"  that  it  involved  "a  matter  of  im- 


1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  558. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  560.  *Ibid.,  p.  565. 


p.  1020. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  225 

mense  importance,"  that  the  object  in  view  was  "to 
form  a  line  of  territorial  governments  extending  from 
the  Mississippi  valley  to  the  Pacific  ocean."  The  very 
existence  of  the  Union  seemed  to  him  to  depend  upon 
this  policy.  For  eight  years  he  had  advocated  the 
organization  of  Nebraska;  he  trusted  that  the  favor 
able  moment  had  come.1  But  his  trust  was  misplaced. 
The  Senate  refused  to  consider  the  bill,  the  South 
voting  almost  solidly  against  it,  though  Atchison,  who 
had  opposed  the  bill  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  session, 
announced  his  conversion, — for  the  reason  that  he  saw 
no  prospect  of  a  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
The  Territory  might  as  well  be  organized  now  as  ten 
years  later.2 

Disappointed  by  the  inaction  of  Congress,  the  Wyan- 
dots  took  matters  into  their  own  hands,  and  set  up  a 
provisional  government.3  Then  ensued  a  contest  be 
tween  the  Missouri  factions  to  name  the  territorial 
delegate, — who  was  to  present  the  claims  of  the  new 
government  to  the  authorities  at  Washington.  On 
November  7,  1853,  Thomas  Johnson,  the  nominee  of 
the  Atchison  faction,  was  elected.4  In  the  meantime 
Senator  Atchison  had  again  changed  his  mind :  he  was 
now  opposed  to  the  organization  of  Nebraska,  unless 
the  Missouri  Compromise  were  repealed.5  The  motives 
which  prompted  this  recantation  can  only  be  surmised. 
Presumably,  for  some  reason,  Atchison  no  longer  be 
lieved  the  Missouri  Compromise  "irremediable." 

The  strangely  unsettled  condition  of  the  great  tract 
whose  fate  was  pending,  is  no  better  illustrated  than 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  1116-1117.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1113. 

8  Connelley,  Provisional  Government,  pp.  43  ff.         *  Ibid.,  pp.  37-41. 
8  Pike,  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War,  p.  183 ;  Connelley,  pp.  76-77. 
15 


226  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

by  a  second  election  which  was  held  on  the  upper  Mis 
souri.  One  Hadley  D.  Johnson,  sometime  member  of 
the  Iowa  legislature,  hearing  of  the  proposal  of  the 
Wyandots  to  send  a  territorial  delegate  to  Congress, 
invited  his  friends  in  western  Iowa  to  cross  the  river 
and  hold  an  election.  They  responded  by  choosing 
their  enterprising  compatriot  for  their  delegate,  who 
promptly  set  out  for  Washington,  bearing  their  man 
date.  Arriving  at  the  capital,  he  found  Thomas  John 
son  already  occupying  a  seat  in  the  House  in  the 
capacity  of  delegate-elect.  Not  to  be  outdone,  the  Iowa 
Johnson  somewhat  surreptitiously  secured  his  ad 
mission  to  the  floor.  Subsequently,  "the  two  John 
sons,  "  as  they  were  styled  by  the  members,  were 
ousted,  the  House  refusing  very  properly  to  recognize 
either.  Thomas  Johnson  exhibited  some  show  of 
temper,  but  was  placated  by  the  good  sense  of  his  rival, 
who  proposed  that  they  should  strike  for  two  Terri 
tories  instead  of  one.  Why  not;  was  not  Nebraska 
large  enough  for  both!1 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  question  of  Nebraska 
seemed  likely  to  recur.  Certain  Southern  newspapers 
were  openly  demanding  the  removal  of  the  slavery  re 
striction  in  the  new  Territory.2  Yet  the  chairman  of 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Territories,  who  had  just  re 
turned  from  Europe,  seems  to  have  been  unaware  of 
the  undercurrents  whose  surface  indications  have  been 
pointed  out.  He  wrote  confidentially  on  November 
llth:3  "It  [the  administration]  has  difficulties  ahead, 

*See  Hadley  D.  Johnson's  account  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Ne 
braska  Historical  Society,  Vol.  II. 

2  Illinois  State  Eegister,  December  22,  1853. 

"MS.  Letter  to  the  editors  of  the  Illinois  State  Eegister,  dated  No 
vember  11,  1853. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  227 

but  it  must  meet  them  boldly  and  fairly.  There  is  a  sur 
plus  revenue  which  must  be  disposed  of  and  the  tariff 
reduced  to  a  legitimate  revenue  standard.  It  will  not 
do  to  allow  the  surplus  to  accumulate  in  the  Treasury 
and  thus  create  a  pecuniary  revulsion  that  would  over 
whelm  the  business  arrangements  and  financial  affairs 
of  the  country.  The  Eiver  and  Harbor  question  must 
be  met  and  decided.  Now  in  my  opinion  is  the  time 
to  put  those  great  interests  on  a  more  substantial  and 
secure  basis  by  a  well  devised  system  of  Tonnage 
duties.  I  do  not  know  what  the  administration  will  do 
on  this  question,  but  I  hope  they  will  have  the  courage 
to  do  what  we  all  feel  to  be  right.  The  Pacific  railroad 
will  also  be  a  disturbing  element.  It  will  never  do  to 
commence  making  railroads  by  the  federal  government 
under  any  pretext  of  necessity.  We  can  grant  alter 
nate  sections  of  land  as  we  did  for  the  Central  Bo  ad, 
but  not  a  dollar  from  the  National  Treasury.  These 
are  the  main  questions  and  my  opinions  are  fore 
shadowed  as  you  are  entitled  to  know  them." 

In  the  same  letter  occurs  an  interesting  personal 
allusion:  "I  see  many  of  the  newspapers  are  holding 
me  up  as  a  candidate  for  the  next  Presidency.  I  do 
not  wish  to  occupy  that  position.  I  do  not  think  I  will 
be  willing  to  have  my  name  used.  I  think  such  a  state 
of  things  will  exist  that  I  shall  not  desire  the  nomina 
tion.  Yet  I  do  not  intend  to  do  any  act  which  will  de 
prive  me  of  the  control  of  my  own  action.  I  shall 
remain  entirely  non-committal  and  hold  myself  at 
liberty  to  do  whatever  my  duty  to  my  principles  and 
my  friends  may  require  when  the  time  for  action 
arrives.  Our  first  duty  is  to  the  cause — the  fate  of 
individual  politicians  is  of  minor  consequence.  The 


228  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

party  is  in  a  distracted  condition  and  it  requires  all 
our  wisdom,  prudence  and  energy  to  consolidate  its 
power  and  perpetuate  its  principles.  Let  us  leave  the 
Presidency  out  of  view  for  at  least  two  years  to  come." 

These  are  not  the  words  of  a  man  who  is  plotting 
a  revolution.  Had  Nebraska  and  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  been  uppermost  in  his  thoughts,  he  would  have 
referred  to  the  subject,  for  the  letter  was  written  in 
strict  confidence  to  friends,  from  whom  he  kept  no 
secrets  and  before  whom  he  was  not  wont  to  pose. 

Those  better  informed,  however,  believed  that  Con 
gress  would  have  to  deal  with  the  territorial  question 
in  the  near  future.  The  Washington  Union,  commonly 
regarded  as  the  organ  of  the  administration,  predicted 
that  next  to  pressing  foreign  affairs,  the  Pacific  rail 
road  and  the  Territories  would  occupy  the  attention  of 
the  administration.1  And  before  Congress  assembled, 
or  had  been  long  in  session,  the  chairman  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories  must  have  sensed  the  situation, 
for  on  December  14,  1853,  Senator  Dodge  of  Iowa  in 
troduced  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  Nebraska,  which 
was  identical  with  that  of  the  last  session.2  The  bill 
was  promptly  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories,  and  the  Nebraska  question  entered  upon  its  last 
phase.  Within  a  week,  Douglas's  friends  of  the  Illinois 
State  Register  were  sufficiently  well  informed  of  the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  his  mind  to  hazard  this  con 
jecture:  "We  believe  they  [the  people  of  Nebraska] 

1  Washington  Union,  December  3,  1853.     See  also  item  showing  the 
interest  in  Nebraska,  in  the  issue  of  November  26. 

2  Senate  Bill  No.  22.     The  bounds  were  fixed  at  43°  on  the  north; 
36°  30'  on  the  south,  except  where  the  boundary  of  New  Mexico  marked 
the  line;   the  western  line  of  Iowa  and  Missouri  on  the  east;  and  the 
Kocky  Mountains  on  the  west. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  229 

may  be  safely  left  to  act  for  themselves.  .  .  .The  terri 
tories  should  be  admitted  to  exercise,  as  nearly  as 
practicable,  all  the  rights  claimed  by  the  States,  and 
to  adopt  all  such  political  regulations  and  institutions 
as  their  wisdom  may  suggest.  "l  A  New  York  corre 
spondent  announced  on  December  30th,  that  the  com 
mittee  would  soon  report  a  bill  for  three  Territories  on 
the  basis  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah;  that  is,  without 
excluding  or  admitting  slavery.  "Climate  and  nature 
and  the  necessary  pursuits  of  the  people  who  are  to 
occupy  the  territories, "  added  the  writer  complacently, 
"will  settle  the  question — and  these  will  effectually 
exclude  slavery."2 

These  rumors  foreshadowed  the  report  of  the  com 
mittee.  The  problem  was  to  find  a  mode  of  overcoming 
the  opposition  of  the  South  to  the  organization  of  a 
Territory  which  would  not  only  add  eventually  to  the 
number  of  free  States,  but  also  open  up  a  northern 
route  to  the  Pacific.  The  price  of  concession  from  the 
South  on  the  latter  point  must  be  some  apparent  con 
cession  to  the  South  in  the  matter  of  slavery.  The  re 
port  of  January  4, 1854,  and  the  bill  which  accompanied 
it,  was  Douglas's  solution  of  the  problem.3  The  prin 
ciples  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  were  to  be 
affirmed  and  carried  into  practical  operation  within  the 

1  Illinois  State   "Register,  December  22,  1853. 

aNew  York  Journal  of  Commerce,  December  30,  1853. 

•Two  years  later,  Douglas  flatly  denied  that  he  had  brought  in  the 
bill  at  the  dictation  of  Atchison  or  any  one  else;  and  I  see  no  good 
ground  on  which  to  doubt  his  word.  His  own  statement  was  that  he 
first  consulted  with  Senator  Bright  and  one  other  Senator  from  the 
Northwest,  and  then  took  counsel  with  Southern  friends.  See  Globe, 
34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  392-393;  also  Rhodes,  History  of  the 
United  States,  I,  pp.  431:432.  Mr.  Ehodes  is  no  doubt  correct,  when  he 
says  "the  committee  on  territories  was  Douglas." 


230  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

limits  of  the  new  Territory  of  Nebraska.  ' '  In  the  judg 
ment  of  your  committee,"  read  the  report,  "those 
measures  were  intended  to  have  a  far  more  comprehen 
sive  and  enduring  effect  than  the  mere  adjustment  of 
the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  recent  acquisition  of 
Mexican  territory.  They  were  designed  to  establish 
certain  great  principles  ....  your  committee  have 
deemed  it  their  duty  to  incorporate  and  perpetuate,  in 
their  territorial  bill,  the  principles  and  spirit  of  those 
measures.  If  any  other  consideration  were  necessary, 
to  render  the  propriety  of  this  course  imperative  upon 
the  committee,  they  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
Nebraska  country  occupies  the  same  relative  position 
to  the  slavery  question,  as  did  New  Mexico  and  Utah, 
when  those  Territories  were  organized."1 

Just  as  it  was  a  disputed  point,  the  report  argued, 
whether  slavery  was  prohibited  by  law  in  the  country 
acquired  from  Mexico,  so  it  is  questioned  whether 
slavery  is  prohibited  in  the  Nebraska  country  by  valid 
enactment.  "In  the  opinion  of  those  eminent  states 
men,  who  hold  that  Congress  is  invested  with  no  right 
ful  authority  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories,  the  8th  section  of  the  act  preparatory 
to  the  admission  of  Missouri  is  null  and  void ;  while  the 
prevailing  sentiment  in  large  portions  of  the  Union 
sustains  the  doctrine  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  secures  to  every  citizen  an  inalienable 
right  to  move  into  any  of  the  Territories  with  his  prop 
erty,  of  whatever  kind  and  description,  and  to  hold  and 
enjoy  the  same  under  the  sanction  of  law.  Your  com 
mittee  do  not  feel  themselves  called  upon  to  enter  upon 
the  discussion  of  these  controverted  questions.  They 

1  Senate  Keport  No.  15,  33  Cong.,  1 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  231 

involve  the  same  grave  issues  which  produced  the  agi 
tation,  the  sectional  strife,  and  the  fearful  struggle  of 
1850."  And  just  as  Congress  deemed  it  wise  in  1850 
to  refrain  from  deciding  the  matter  in  controversy,  so 
"your  committee  are  not  prepared  now  to  recommend  a 
departure  from  the  course  pursued  on  that  memorable 
occasion  either  by  affirming  or  repealing  the  8th  section 
of  the  Missouri  act,  or  by  any  act  declaratory  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution  in  respect  to  the  legal 
points  in  dispute. ' '  The  essential  features  of  the  Com 
promise  of  1850,  which  should  again  be  carried  into 
practical  operation,  were  stated  as  follows : 

"First:  That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in 
the  Territories,  and  in  the  new  States  to  be  formed 
therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people 
residing  therein,  by  their  appropriate  representatives, 
to  be  chosen  by  them  for  that  purpose. 

"Second:  That  'all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves,' 
and  'questions  of  personal  freedom,'  are  referred  to 
the  adjudication  of  the  local  tribunals,  with  the  right 
of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

"Third:  That  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  in  respect  to  fugitives  from  service, 
is  to  be  carried  into  faithful  execution  in  all  'the  or 
ganized  Territories,'  the  same  as  in  the  States," 

The  substitute  reported  by  the  committee  followed 
the  Dodge  bill  closely,  but  contained  the  additional 
statement,  "And  when  admitted  as  a  State  or  States, 
the  said  Territory,  or  any  part  of  the  same,  shall  be 
received  into  the  Union,  with  or  without  slavery,  as 
their  Constitution  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of  their 
admission.  "*  This  phraseology  was  identical  with  that 

1  The  northern  boundary  was  extended  to  the  49th  parallel. 


232  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexico  Acts.  The  bill  also  made 
special  provision  for  writs  of  error  and  appeals  from 
the  territorial  court  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  in  all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves  and  per 
sonal  freedom.  This  feature,  too,  was  copied  from  the 
Utah  and  New  Mexico  Acts.  As  first  printed  in  the 
Washington  Sentinel,  January  7th,  the  bill  contained 
no  reference  to  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  no  direct 
suggestion  that  the  territorial  legislature  would  decide 
the  question  of  slavery.  The  wording  of  the  bill  and 
its  general  tenor  gave  the  impression  that  the  pro 
hibition  of  slavery  would  continue  during  the  terri 
torial  status,  unless  in  the  meantime  the  courts  should 
declare  the  Missouri  Compromise  null  and  void.  Three 
days  later,  January  10th,  the  Sentinel  reprinted  the 
bill  with  an  additional  section,  which  had  been  omitted 
by  a  "clerical  error."  This  twenty-first  section  read, 
"In  order  to  avoid  all  misconstruction,  it  is  hereby 
declared  to  be  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act, 
so  far  as  the  question  of  slavery  is  concerned,  to  carry 
into  practical  operation  the  following  propositions  and 
principles,  established  by  the  compromise  measures  of 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty,  to  wit:"  then 
followed  the  three  propositions  which  had  accompanied 
the  report  of  January  4th.  The  last  of  these  three 
propositions  had  been  slightly  abbreviated:  all  ques 
tions  pertaining  to  slavery  were  to  be  left  to  the  deci 
sion  of  the  people  through  their  appropriate  repre 
sentatives,  the  clause  "to  be  chosen  by  them  for  that 
purpose"  being  omitted. 

This  additional  section  transformed  the  whole  bill. 
For  the  first  time  the  people  of  the  Territory  are  men 
tioned  as  the  determining  agents  in  respect  to  slavery. 

. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  233 

And  the  unavoidable  inference  followed,  that  they  were 
not  to  be  hampered  in  their  choice  by  the  restrictive 
feature  of  the  Missouri  Act  of  1820.  The  omission  of 
this  weighty  section  was  certainly  a  most  extraor 
dinary  oversight.  Whose  was  the  "clerical  error "1 
Attached  to  the  original  draft,  now  in  the  custody  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Senate,  is  a  sheet  of  blue  paper, 
in  Douglas's  handwriting,  containing  the  crucial  article. 
All  evidence  points  to  the  conclusion  that  Douglas 
added  this  hastily,  after  the  bill  had  been  twice  read 
in  the  Senate  and  ordered  to  be  printed ;  but  whether 
it  was  carelessly  omitted  by  the  copyist  or  appended 
by  Douglas  as  an  afterthought,  it  is  impossible  to  say.1 
After  his  report  of  January  4th,  there  was  surely  no 
reason  why  Douglas  should  have  hesitated  to  incor 
porate  the  three  propositions  in  the  bill ;  but  it  is  per 
fectly  obvious  that  with  the  appended  section,  the  Neb 
raska  bill  differed  essentially  from  its  prototypes, 
though  Douglas  contended  that  he  had  only  made  ex 
plicit  what  was  contained  implicitly  in  the  Utah  bill. 
Two  years  later  Douglas  replied  to  certain  criticisms 
from  Trumbull  in  these  words :  "He  knew,  or,  if  not,  he 
ought  to  know,  that  the  bill  in  the  shape  in  which  it  was 
first  reported,  as  effectually  repealed  the  Missouri 
restriction  as  it  afterwards  did  when  the  repeal  was 
put  in  express  terms.  The  only  question  was  whether 
it  should  be  done  in  the  language  of  the  acts  of  1850, 

1  The  first  twenty  sections  are  written  on  white  paper,  in  the  hand 
writing  of  a  copyist.  In  pencil  at  the  end  are  the  words:  "Douglas 
reports  Bill  &  read  1  &  to  2  reading  special  report  Print  agreed." 
The  blue  paper  in  Douglas's  handwriting  covers  part  of  these  last 
words.  The  sheet  has  been  torn  in  halves,  but  pasted  together  again 
and  attached  by  sealing  wax  to  the  main  draft.  The  handwriting  be 
trays  haste. 


234  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

or  in  the  language  subsequently  employed,  but  the  legal 
effect  was  precisely  the  same."1  Of  course  Douglas 
was  here  referring  to  the  original  bill  containing  the 
twenty-first  section. 

It  has  commonly  been  assumed  that  Douglas  desired 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  order  to  open 
Nebraska  to  slavery.  This  was  the  passionate  accusa 
tion  of  his  anti-slavery  contemporaries;  and  it  has 
become  the  verdict  of  most  historians.  Yet  there  is 
ample  evidence  that  Douglas  had  no  such  wish  and 
intent.  He  had  said  in  1850,  and  on  other  occasions, 
that  he  believed  the  prairies  to  be  dedicated  to  freedom 
by  a  law  above  human  power  to  repeal.  Climate,  topog 
raphy,  the  conditions  of  slave  labor,  which  no  Northern 
man  knew  better,  forbade  slavery  in  the  unoccupied 
areas  of  the  West.2  True,  he  had  no  such  horror  of 
slavery  extension  as  many  Northern  men  manifested; 
he  was  probably  not  averse  to  sacrificing  some  of  the 
region  dedicated  by  law  to  freedom,  if  thereby  he  could 
carry  out  his  cherished  project  of  developing  the 
greater  Northwest;  but  that  he  deliberately  planned 
to  plant  slavery  in  all  that  region,  is  contradicted  by 
the  incontrovertible  fact  that  he  believed  the  area  of 
slavery  to  be  circumscribed  definitely  by  Nature.  Man 
might  propose  but  physical  geography  would  dispose. 

1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1374. 

*See  his  speech  of  March,  1850,  quoted  above.  In  a  letter  to  the 
editor  of  State  Capital  Eeporter  (Concord,  N.  H.),  February  16,  1854, 
Douglas  intimated  as  strongly  as  he  then  dared — the  bill  was  still  pend 
ing, — that  "the  sons  of  New  England"  in  the  West  would  exclude 
slavery  from  that  region  which  lay  in  the  same  latitude  as  New  York 
and  Pennsylvania,  and  for  much  the  same  reasons  that  slavery  had  been 
abolished  in  those  States;  see  also  Transactions  of  Illinois  State  His 
torical  Society,  1900,  pp.  48-49. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  235 

The  regrettable  aspect  of  Douglas's  course  is  his 
attempt  to  nullify  the  Missouri  Compromise  by  subtle 
indirection.  This  was  the  device  of  a  shifty  politician, 
trying  to  avert  suspicion  and  public  alarm  by  clever 
ambiguities.  That  he  really  believed  a  new  principle 
had  been  substituted  for  an  old  one,  in  dealing  with 
the  Territories,  does  not  extenuate  the  offense,  for  not 
even  he  had  ventured  to  assert  in  1850,  that  the  com 
promises  of  that  year  had  in  any  wise  disturbed  the 
status  of  the  great,  unorganized  area  to  which  Congress 
had  applied  the  restrictive  proviso  of  1820.  Besides, 
only  so  recently  as  1849,  he  had  said,  with  all  the  em 
phasis  of  sincerity,  that  the  compromise  had  "become 
canonized  in  the  hearts  of  the  American  people,  as  a 
sacred  thing,  which  no  ruthless  hand  would  ever  be 
reckless  enough  to  disturb."  And  while  he  then  op 
posed  the  extension  of  the  principle  to  new  Territories, 
he  believed  that  it  had  been  '  '  deliberately  incorporated 
into  our  legislation  as  a  solemn  and  sacred  com 
promise."1 

By  this  time  Douglas  must  have  been  aware  of  the 
covert  purpose  of  Atchison  and  others  to  secure  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  though  he  hoped 
that  they  would  acquiesce  in  his  mode  of  doing  it.  He 
was  evidently  not  prepared  for  the  bold  move  which 
certain  of  the  senators  from  slave  States  were  con 
templating.2  He  was  therefore  startled  by  an  amend 
ment  which  Dixon  of  Kentucky  offered  on  January 
16th,  to  the  effect  that  the  restrictive  clause  of  the  Act 

1  Speech  before  the  Illinois  Legislature,  October  23,  1849 ;   see  Illinois 
State  Register,  November  8,  1849. 

2  The  Southern  Whigs  were  ready  to  support  the  Dixon  Amendment, 
according  to  Clingman,  Speeches  and  Writings,  p.  335. 


236  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

of  1820  should  not  be  so  construed  as  to  apply  to  Neb 
raska  or  any  other  Territory;  "but  that  the  citizens 
of  the  several  States  or  territories  shall  be  at  liberty 
to  take  and  hold  their  slaves  within  any  of  the  terri 
tories  of  the  United  States  or  of  the  States  to  be  formed 
therefrom,"  as  if  the  Missouri  Act  had  never  been 
passed.  Douglas  at  once  left  his  seat  to  remonstrate 
with  Dixon,  who  was  on  the  Whig  side  of  the  Senate 
chamber.  He  disliked  the  amendment,  not  so  much 
because  it  wiped  out  the  Missouri  Compromise  as  be 
cause  it  seemed  ' i  affirmatively  to  legislate  slavery  into 
the  Territory."1  Knowing  Dixon  to  be  a  supporter 
of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  Douglas  begged 
him  not  to  thwart  the  work  of  his  committee,  which  was 
trying  in  good  faith  to  apply  the  cardinal  features  of 
those  measures  to  Nebraska.  The  latter  part  of 
Dixon 's  amendment  could  hardly  be  harmonized  with 
the  principle  of  congressional  non-intervention.2 

There  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Dixon 
moved  in  this  matter  on  his  own  initiative  ;3  but  he  was 
a  friend  to  Atchison  and  he  could  not  have  been  wholly 
ignorant  of  the  Missouri  factional  quarrel.4  To  be 
sure,  Dixon  was  a  Whig,  but  Southern  Whigs  and 
Democrats  were  at  one  in  desiring  expansion  for  the 
peculiar  institution  of  their  section.  Pressure  was  now 
brought  to  bear  upon  Douglas  to  incorporate  the  direct 

*See  remarks  of  Douglas,  January  24th,  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
p.  240. 

'Letter  of  Dixon  to  Foote,  September  30,  1858,  in  Flint,  Douglas, 
pp.  138-141. 

8  Dixon,  True  History  of  the  Eepeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

4  Parker,  Secret  History  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  in  the  Na 
tional  Quarterly  Review,  July,  1880. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  237 

repeal  of  the  compromise  in  the  Nebraska  bill.1  He 
objected  strongly,  foreseeing  no  doubt  the  storm  of 
protest  which  would  burst  over  his  head  in  the  North.2 
Stilt,  if  he  could  unite  the  party  on  the  principle  of 
non-intervention  with  slavery  in  the  Territories,  the 
risk  of  temporary  unpopularity  would  be  worth  taking. 
No  doubt  personal  ambition  played  its  part  in  forming 
his  purpose,  but  party  considerations  swayed  him  most 
powerfully.3  He  witnessed  with  no  little  apprehension 
the  divergence  between  the  Northern  and  Southern 
wings  of  the  party ;  he  had  commented  in  private  upon 
"the  distracted  condition"  of  the  party  and  the  need 
of  perpetuating  its  principles  and  consolidating  its 
power.  Might  this  not  be  his  opportunity? 

On  Sunday  morning,  January  22d,  just  before  the 
hour  for  church,  Douglas,  with  several  of  his  col 
leagues,  called  upon  the  Secretary  of  War,  Davis,  stat 
ing  that  the  Committees  on  Territories  of  the  Senate 
and  House  had  agreed  upon  a  bill,  for  which  the  Presi 
dent's  approval  was  desired.  They  pressed  for  an 
immediate  interview  inasmuch  as  they  desired  to  re 
port  the  bill  on  the  morrow.  Somewhat  reluctantly, 
Davis  arranged  an  interview  for  them,  though  the 
President  was  not  in  the  habit  of  receiving  visitors  on 
Sunday.  Yielding  to  their  request,  President  Pierce 
took  the  proposed  bill  under  consideration,  giving  care 
ful  heed  to  all  explanations ;  and  when  they  were  done, 

Barker,  Secret  History  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act;  also  Foote, 
Casket  of-  Eeminiscences,  p.  93;  also  Cox,  Three  Decades  of  Federal 
Legislation,  p.  49. 

8  Ibid.     Dixon  's  account  of  his  interview  with  Douglas  is  too  melo 
dramatic  to  be  taken  literally,  but  no  doubt  it  reveals  Douglas 's  agitation. 
3  This  was  Greeley's  interpretation,  Tribune,  June  1,  1861. 


238  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

both  he  and  his  influential  secretary  promised  their 
support.1 

What  was  this  momentous  bill  to  which  the  President 
thus  pledged  himself!  The  title  indicated  the  most 
striking  feature.  There  were  now  to  be  two  Terri 
tories:  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  Bedded  in  the  heart 
of  Section  14,  however,  was  a  still  more  important 
provision  which  announced  that  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  Act  of  1820  had  been  "superseded  by 
the  principles  of  the  legislation  of  eighteen  hundred 
and  fifty,  commonly  called  the  compromise  measures, " 
and  was  therefore  "inoperative." 

It  has  been  commonly  believed  that  Douglas  contem 
plated  making  one  free  and  one  slave  State  out  of  the 
Nebraska  region.  His  own  simple  explanation  is  far 
more  credible :  the  two  Johnsons  had  petitioned  for  a 
division  of  the  Territory  along  the  fortieth  parallel,  and 
both  the  Iowa  and  Missouri  delegations  believed  that 
their  local  interests  would  be  better  served  by  two 
Territories.2 

Again  Pacific  railroad  interests  seem  to  have  crossed 
the  path  of  the  Nebraska  bill.  The  suspicions  of 
Delegate-elect  Hadley  Johnson  had  been  aroused  by 
the  neglect  of  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  to 
extinguish  the  claims  of  the  Omaha  Indians,  whose 
lands  lay  directly  west  of  Iowa.  At  the  last  session, 
an  appropriation  had  been  made  for  the  purpose  of 
extinguishing  the  Indian  title  to  lands  west  of  both 
Missouri  and  Iowa ;  and  everyone  knew  that  this  was 
a  preliminary  step  to  settlement  by  whites.  The  ap- 

1  Jefferson    Davis    to    Mrs.    Dixon.    September    27,    1879,    in   Dixon, 
True  History  of  the  Eepeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  pp.  457  ff. 
3 Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  221. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  239 

propriation  had  been  zealously  advocated  by  repre 
sentatives  from  Missouri,  who  frankly  admitted  that 
the  possession  of  these  lands  would  make  the  Pacific 
railroad  route  available.  Now  as  the  Indian  Commis 
sioner,,  who  had  before  shown  himself  an  active  parti 
san  of  Senator  Atchison,  rapidly  pushed  on  the  treat 
ies  with  the  Indians  west  of  Missouri  and  dallied  with 
the  Omahas,  the  inference  was  unavoidable,  that  Iowa 
interests  were  being  sacrificed  to  Missouri  interests. 
Such  was  the  story  that  the  Iowa  Johnson  poured  into 
the  ear  of  Senator  Douglas,  to  whom  he  was  presented 
by  Senator  Dodge.1  The  surest  way  to  safeguard  the 
interests  of  Iowa  was  to  divide  the  Territory  of  Neb 
raska,  and  give  Iowa  her  natural  outlet  to  the  West. 

Senator  Dodge  had  also  come  to  this  conclusion. 
Nebraska  would  be  to  Iowa,  what  Iowa  had  been  to 
Illinois.  Were  only  one  Territory  organized,  the  seat 
of  government  and  leading  thoroughfares  would  pass 
to  the  south  of  Iowa.2  Put  in  the  language  of  the  pro 
moters  of  the  Pacific  railroad,  one  Territory  meant  aid 
to  the  central  route;  two  Territories  meant  an  equal 
chance  for  both  northern  and  central  routes.  As  the 
representative  of  Chicago  interests,  Douglas  was  not 
blind  to  these  considerations. 

On  Monday,  January  23d,  Douglas  reported  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  with  a  brief  word  of  explana 
tion.  Next  day  Senator  Dixon  expressed  his  satisfac 
tion  with  the  amendment,  which  he  interpreted  as 
virtually  repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise.  He  dis 
claimed  any  other  wish  or  intention  than  to  secure  the 
principle  which  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  had 

1  Transactions  of  the  Nebraska  Historical  Society,  Vol.  II,  p.  90. 
*Glole,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  382. 


240  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

established.1  .,  An  editorial  in  the  Washington  Union 
threw  the  weight  of  the  administration  into  the  balance : 
"The  proposition  of  Mr.  Douglas  is  a  practical  execu 
tion  of  the  principles  of  that  compromise  [of  1850],  and 
therefore,  cannot  but  be  regarded  by  the  administra 
tion  as  a  test  of  Democratic  orthodoxy. ' '2 

While  the  administration  publicly  wheeled  into  line 
behind  Douglas,  the  "Appeal  of  the  Independent 
Democrats  in  Congress  to  the  People  of  the  United 
States"  summoned  the  anti-slavery  elements  to  join 
battle  in  behalf  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  This 
memorable  document  had  been  written  by  Chase  of 
Ohio  and  dated  January  19th,  but  a  postscript  was 
added  after  the  revised  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  had 
been  reported.3  It  was  an  adroitly  worded  paper. 
History  has  falsified  many  of  its  predictions ;  history 
then  controverted  many  of  its  assumptions ;  but  it  was 
colored  with  strong  emotion  and  had  the  ring  of  right 
eous  indignation. 

The  gist  of  the  appeal  was  contained  in  two  clauses, 
one  of  which  declared  that  the  Nebraska  bill  would 
open  all  the  unorganized  territory  of  the  Union  to  the 
ingress  of  slavery;  the  other  arraigned  the  bill  as  "a 
gross  violation  of  a  sacred  pledge;  as  a  criminal  be 
trayal  of  precious  rights."  In  ominous  words,  fellow 
citizens  were  besought  to  observe  how  the  blight  of 
slavery  would  settle  upon  all  this  land,  if  this  bill  should 
become  a  law.  Christians  and  Christian  ministers  were 
implored  to  interpose.  "Let  all  protest,  earnestly  and 
emphatically,  by  correspondence,  through  the  press,  by 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  239-240. 

2  Washington    Union,  January  24,   1854. 

3  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  282. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  241 

memorials,  by  resolutions  of  public  meetings  and  legis 
lative  bodies,  and  in  whatever  other  mode  may  seem 
expedient,  against  this  enormous  crime. "  In  the  post 
script  Douglas  received  personal  mention.  "Not  a 
man  in  Congress  or  out  of  Congress,  in  1850,  pretended 
that  the  compromise  measures  would  repeal  the  Mis 
souri  prohibition.  Mr.  Douglas  himself  never  ad 
vanced  such  a  pretence  until  this  session.  His  own 
Nebraska  bill,  of  last  session,  rejected  it.  It  is  a  sheer 
afterthought.  To  declare  the  prohibition  inoperative, 
may,  indeed,  have  effect  in  law  as  a  repeal,  but  it  is  a 
most  discreditable  way  of  reaching  the  object.  Will 
the  people  permit  their  dearest  interests  to  be  thus 
made  the  mere  hazards  of  a  presidential  game,  and  de 
stroyed  by  false  facts  and  false  inf erences  ? ' n 

This  attack  roused  the  tiger  in  the  Senator  from 
Illinois.  When  he  addressed  the  Senate  on  January 
30th,  he  labored  under  ill-repressed  anger.  Even  in 
the  expurgated  columns  of  the  Congressional  Globe 
enough  stinging  personalities  appeared  to  make  his 
friends  regretful.  What  excited  his  wrath  particu 
larly  was  that  Chase  and  Sumner  had  asked  for  a 
postponement  of  discussion,  in  order  to  examine  the 
bill,  and  then,  in  the  interval,  had  sent  out  their  indict 
ment  of  the  author.  It  was  certainly  unworthy  of  him 
to  taunt  them  with  having  desecrated  the  Sabbath  day 
by  writing  their  plea.  The  charge  was  not  only  puerile 
but  amusing,  when  one  considers  how  Douglas  himself 
was  observing  that  particular  Sabbath. 

It  was  comparatively  easy  to  question  and  disprove 
the  unqualified  statement  of  the  Appeal,  that  "the 
original  settled  policy  of  the  United  States  was  non- 

1Glole,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  ^81-282. 
16 


242  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

extension  of  slavery."  Less  convincing  was  Doug 
las's  attempt  to  prove  that  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  expressly  annulled  in  1850,  when  portions  of  Texas 
and  of  the  former  Spanish  province  of  Louisiana  were 
added  to  New  Mexico,  and  also  a  part  of  the  province 
of  Louisiana  was  joined  to  Utah.  Douglas  was  in  the 
main  correct  as  to  geographical  data ;  but  he  could  not, 
and  did  not,  prove  that  the  members  of  the  Thirty- 
first  Congress  purposed  also  to  revoke  the  Missouri 
Compromise  restriction  in  all  the  other  unorganized 
Territories.  This  contention  was  one  of  those  non- 
sequiturs  of  which  Douglas,  in  the  heat  of  argument, 
was  too  often  guilty.  Still  more  regrettable,  because 
it  seemed  to  convict  him  of  sophistry,  was  the  mode  by 
which  he  sought  to  evade  the  charge  of  the  Appeal,  that 
the  act  organizing  New  Mexico  and  settling  the  bound 
ary  of  Texas  had  reaffirmed  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
To  establish  his  point  he  had  to  assume  that  all  the 
land  cut  off  from  Texas  north  of  36°  30',  was  added  to 
New  Mexico,  thus  leaving  nothing  to  which  the  slavery 
restriction,  reaffirmed  in  the  act  of  1850,  could  apply. 
But  Chase  afterward  invalidated  this  assumption  and 
Douglas  was  forced  so  to  qualify  his  original  state 
ment  as  to  yield  the  point.  This  was  a  damaging  ad 
mission  and  prejudiced  his  cause  before  the  country. 
But  when  he  brought  his  wide  knowledge  of  American 
colonization  to  bear  upon  the  concrete  problems  of  gov 
ernmental  policy,  his  grasp  of  the  situation  was  mas 
terly. 

"Let  me  ask  you  where  yon  have  succeeded  in  ex 
cluding  slavery  by  an  act  of  Congress  from  one  inch  of 
American  soil?  You  may  tell  me  that  you  did  it  in  the 
northwest  territory  by  the  ordinance  of  1787.  I  will 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  243 

show  you  by  the  history  of  the  country  that  you  did  not 
accomplish  any  such  thing.  You  prohibited  slavery 
there  by  law,  but  you  did  not  exclude  it  in  fact.  ...  I 
know  of  but  one  territory  of  the  United  States  where 
slavery  does  exist,  and  that  one  is  where  you  have 
prohibited  it  by  law,  and  it  is  in  this  very  Nebraska 
Territory.  In  defiance  of  the  eighth  section  of  the  act 
of  1820,  in  defiance  of  Congressional  dictation,  there 
have  been,  not  many,  but  a  few  slaves  introduced.  .  .  . 
I  have  no  doubt  that  whether  you  organize  the  territory 
of  Nebraska  or  not  this  will  continue  for  some  time  to 
come.  .  .  .  But  when  settlers  rush  in — when  labor  be 
comes  plenty,  and  therefore  cheap,  in  that  climate, 
with  its  productions,  it  is  worse  than  folly  to  think  of 
its  being  a  slave-holding  country.  .  .  .  I  do  not  like,  I 
never  did  like,  the  system  of  legislation  on  our  part, 
by  which  a  geographical  line,  in  violation  of  the  laws 
of  natii-re,  and  climate,  and  soil,  and  of  the  laws  of  God, 
should  be  run  to  establish  institutions  for  a  people."1 
The  fate  of  the  bill  was  determined  behind  closed 
doors.  After  all,  the  Senate  chamber  was  only  a  public 
clearing-house,  where  senators  elucidated,  or  per 
chance  befogged,  the  issues.  The  real  arena  was  the 
Democratic  caucus.  Under  the  leadership  of  Douglas, 
those  high  in  the  party  conclaves  met,  morning  after 
morning,  in  the  endeavor  to  compose  the  sharp  differ 
ences  between  the  Northern  and  the  Southern  wings 
of  the  party.2  On  both  sides,  there  was  a  disposition 
to  agree  on  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  278-279. 

2  See  remarks  of  Senator  Bell  of  Tennessee,  May  24,  1854,  in  Globe, 
33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  939-940;  also  see  statement  of  Benjamin  in 
Glole,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1093. 


244  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

though  grave  mi  sgivings  were  felt.  There  were  South 
ern  men  who  believed  that  the  repeal  would  be  "an  un 
availing  boon";  and  there  were  Northern  politicians 
who  foresaw  the  storm  of  popular  indignation  that 
would  break  upon  their  heads.1  Southern  Democrats 
were  disposed  to  follow  the  South  Carolina  theory  to  its 
logical  extreme:  as  joint  owners  of  the  Territories  the 
citizens  of  all  the  States  might  carry  their  property 
into  the  Territories  without  let  or  hindrance ;  only  the 
people  of  the  Territory  in  the  act  of  framing  a  State 
constitution  might  exclude  slavery.  Neither  Congress 
nor  a  territorial  legislature  might  take  away  property 
in  slaves.  With  equal  pertinacity,  Douglas  and  his 
supporters  advocated  the  right  of  the  people  in  their 
territorial  status,  to  mould  their  institutions  as  they 
chose.  Was  there  any  middle  ground? 

Prolonged  discussion  made  certain  points  of  agree 
ment  clear  to  all.  It  was  found  that  no  one  questioned 
the  right  of  a  State,  with  sufficient  population  and  a 
republican  constitution,  to  enter  the  Union  with  or 
without  slavery  as  it  chose.  All  agreed  that  it  was  best 
that  slavery  should  not  be  discussed  in  Congress.  All 
agreed  that,  whether  or  no  Congress  had  the  power 
to  exclude  slavery  in  the  Territories,  it  ought  not  to 
exercise  it.  All  agreed  that  if  Congress  had  such 
power,  it  ought  to  delegate  it  to  the  people.  Here 
agreement  ceased.  Did  Congress  have  such  power? 
Clearly  the  law  of  the  Constitution  could  alone  de 
termine.  Then  why  not  delegate  the  power  to  control 
their  domestic  institutions  to  the  people  of  the  Terri 
tories,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution? 
"And  then,"  said  one  of  the  participants  later,  "in 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.  pp.  414-415;    p.  943. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  245 

order  to  provide  a  means  by  which  the  Constitution 
could  govern  ....  we  of  the  South,  conscious  that  we 
were  right,  the  North  asserting  the  same  confidence  in 
its  own  doctrines,  agreed  that  every  question  touching 
human  slavery  or  human  freedom  should  be  appealable 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  for  its 
decision. ' n 

While  this  compromise  was  being  reached  in  caucus, 
the  bill  was  under  constant  fire  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate.  The  Appeal  of  the  Independent  Democrats 
had  bitterly  arraigned  the  declaratory  part  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  where  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  said  to  have  been  superseded  and  therefore  in 
operative.  Even  staunch  Democrats  like  Cass  had 
taken  exception  to  this  phraseology,  preferring  to  de 
clare  the  Missouri  Compromise  null  and  void  in  un 
equivocal  terms.  To  Douglas  there  was  nothing 
ambiguous  or  misleading  in  the  wording  of  the  clause. 
What  was  meant  was  this :  the  acts  of  1850  rendered 
the  Missouri  Compromise  inoperative  in  Utah  and 
New  Mexico ;  but  so  far  as  the  Missouri  Compromise 
applied  to  territory  not  embraced  in  those  acts,  it  was 
superseded  by  the  great  principle  established  in  1850. 
" Superseded  by"  meant  "inconsistent  with"  the  com 
promise  of  1850.2  The  word  "supersede,"  however, 
continued  to  cause  offense.  Cass  read  from  the  dic 
tionary  to  prove  that  the  word  had  a  more  positive 
force  than  Douglas  gave  to  it.  To  supersede  meant 

1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1093.  This  statement  by  Senator 
Benjamin  was  corroborated  by  Douglas  and  by  Hunter  of  Virginia, 
during  the  debates,  see  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  224.  See  also 
the  letter  of  A.  H.  Stephens,  May  9,  1860,  in  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
App.,  pp.  315-316. 

a  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  343-344. 


246  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

to  set  aside :  he  could  not  bring  himself  to  assent  to 
this  statement.1 

By  this  time  agreement  had  been  reached  in  the 
caucus,  so  that  Douglas  was  quite  willing  to  modify 
the  phraseology  of  the  bill.  "We  see,"  said  he,  "that 
the  difference  here  is  only  a  difference  as  to  the  appro 
priate  word  to  be  used.  We  all  agree  in  the  principle 
which  we  now  propose  to  establish. "  As  he  was  not 
satisfied  with  the  phrases  suggested,  he  desired  some 
time  to  consult  with  friends  of  the  bill,  as  to  which 
word  would  best  '  '  carry  out  the  idea  which  we  are  in 
tending  to  put  into  practical  operation  by  this  bill."2 

On  the  following  day,  February  7th,  Douglas  re 
ported,  not  merely  "the  appropriate  word,"  but  an 
entirely  new  clause,  the  product  of  the  caucus  delibera 
tions. 

The  eighth  section  of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  ad 
mission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  is  no  longer  said 
to  be  superseded,  but  "being  inconsistent  with  the 
principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery 
in  the  States  and  Territories,  as  recognized  by  the 
legislation  of  1850,  (commonly  called  the  Compromise 
Measures)  is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void, 
it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to 
legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  ex 
clude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States."3 

This  part  of  the  bill  had  now  assumed  its  final  form. 
Subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  344. 
*IUd.,  p.  344.     3Ibid.,  p.  353. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  247 

The  words  were  clear;  but  what  was  their  implication? 
A  few  days  later,  Douglas  wrote  to  his  Springfield  con 
fidant,  ' '  The  Democratic  party  is  committed  in  the  most 
solemn  manner  to  the  principle  of  congressional  non 
interference  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories. 
The  administration  is  committed  to  the  Nebraska  bill 
and  will  stand  by  it  at  all  hazards.  .  .  .  The  principle  of 
this  bill  will  form  the  test  of  parties,  and  the  only 
alternative  is  either  to  stand  with  the  Democracy  or 
rally  under  Seward,  John  Van  Buren  &  Co.  .  .  ._We 
shall  pass  the  Nebraska  bill  in  both  Houses  by  decisive 
majorities  and  the  party  will  then  be  stronger  than 
ever,  for  it  will  be  united  upon  principle. ' n 

Yet  there  were  dissentient  opinions.  What  was  in 
the  background  of  Southern  consciousness  was  ex 
pressed  bluntly  by  Brown  of  Mississippi,  who  refused 
to  admit  that  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  Territory  to 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions,  including  slavery, 
was  a  right  to  destroy.  "If  I  thought  in  voting  for  the 
bill  as  it  now  stands,  I  was  conceding  the  right  of  the 
people  in  the  territory,  during  their  territorial  exis 
tence,  to  exclude  slavery,  I  would  withhold  my  vote. . . . 
It  leaves  the  question  where  I  am  quite  willing  it 
should  be  left — to  the  ultimate  decision  of  the  courts."2 
Chase  also,  though  for  widely  different  reasons,  dis 
puted  the  power  of  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  exclude 
slavery,  under  the  terms  of  this  bill.3  And  Senator 
Clayton  pointed  out  that  non-interference  was  a  delu 
sion,  so  long  as  it  lay  within  the  power  of  any  member 
of  Congress  to  move  a  repeal  of  any  and  every  terri- 

1  MS.  Letter,  Douglas  to  Lanphier,  February  13,  1854. 

2  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  232. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  279-280. 


248  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

torial  law  which  came  up  for  approval,  for  the  bill  ex 
pressly  provided  for  congressional  approval  of  terri 
torial  laws.1 

Douglas  was  irritated  by  these  aspersions  on  his 
cherished  principle.  He  declared  again,  in  defiant 
tones,  that  the  right  of  the  people  to  permit  or  exclude 
was  clearly  included  in  the  wording  of  the  measure. 
He  was  not  willing  to  be  lectured  about  indirectness. 
He  had  heard  cavil  enough  about  his  amendments.2 

In  the  course  of  a  debate  on  March  2d,  another 
unforeseen  difficulty  loomed  up  in  the  distance.  If  the 
Missouri  Compromise  were  repealed,  would  not  the 
original  laws  of  Louisiana,  which  legalized  slavery, 
be  revived?  How  then  could  the  people  of  the  Terri 
tories  be  free  to  legislate  against  slavery?  It  was  a 
knotty  question,  testing  the  best  legal  minds  in  the 
Senate ;  and  it  was  dispatched  only  by  an  amendment 
which  stated  that  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  should  not  revive  any  antecedent  law  respect 
ing  slavery.3 

The  objection  raised  by  Clayton  still  remained: 
how  was  it  possible  to  reconcile  congressional  non 
intervention  with  the  right  of  Congress  to  revise 
territorial  laws?  Now  Douglas  had  never  contended 
that  the  right  of  the  people  to  self-government  in  the 
Territories  was  complete  as  against  the  power  of  Con 
gress.  He  had  never  sought  to  confer  upon  them  more 
than  a  relative  degree  of  self-government — * '  the  power 
to  regulate  their  domestic  institutions."  He  could 
not,  and  he  did  not,  deny  the  truth  and  awkwardness 
of  Clayton's  contention.  Where,  then,  demanded  his 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  391.     2  Ibid.,  pp.  287-288. 
'Ibid.,  p.  296. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  249 

critics,  was  the  guarantee  that  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  would  banish  the  slavery  controversies  from  Con 
gress?  This  challenge  could  not  go  unanswered. 
Without  other  explanation,  Douglas  moved  to  strike 
out  the  provision  requiring  all  territorial  laws  to  be 
submitted  to  Congress.1  But  did  this  divest  Congress 
of  the  power  of  revision?  On  this  point  Douglas  pre 
served  a  discreet  silence. 

Eecognizing  also  the  incongruity  of  giving  an  abso 
lute  veto  power  to  a  governor  who  would  be  appointed 
by  the  President,  Douglas  proposed  a  suspensive,  in 
place  of  an  absolute,  veto  power.  A  two-thirds  vote 
in  each  branch  of  the  territorial  legislature  would 
override  the  governor's  negative.2  Chase  now  tried 
to  push  Douglas  one  step  farther  on  the  same  slippery 
road.  "Can  it  be  said,"  he  asked,  "that  the  people 
of  a  territory  will  enjoy  self-government  when  they 
elect  only  their  legislators  and  are  subject  to  a  gov 
ernor,  judges,  and  a  secretary  appointed  by  the  Federal 
Executive?"  He  would  amend  by  making  all  these 
officers  elective.3  Douglas  extricated  himself  from  this 
predicament  by  saying  simply  that  these  officers  were 
charged  with  federal  rather  than  with  territorial 
duties.4  The  amendment  was  promptly  negatived.  Yet 
seven  years  later,  this  very  proposition  was  indorsed 
by  Douglas  under  peculiar  circumstances.  At  this  time 
in  1854,  it  would  have  effected  nothing  short  of  a 
revolution  in  American  territorial  policy ;  and  it  might 
have  altered  the  whole  history  of  Kansas. 

Despite  asseverations  to  the  contrary,  there  were 
Southern  men  in  Congress  who  nourished  the  tacit 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  296-297. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  297.    *Ibid.,  p.  298.    *  Ibid.,  p.  298. 


250  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

hope  that  another  slave  State  might  be  gained  west 
of  the  Missouri.  There  was  a  growing  conviction 
among  Southern  people  that  the  possession  of  Kansas 
at  least  might  be  successfully  contested.1  At  all  events, 
no  barrier  to  Southern  immigration  into  the  Territory 
was  allowed  to  remain  in  the  bill.  Objection  was  raised 
to  the  provision,  common  to  nearly  all  territorial  bills, 
that  aliens,  who  had  declared  their  intention  of  becom 
ing  citizens,  should  be  permitted  to  vote  in  territorial 
elections.  In  a  contest  with  the  North  for  the  posses 
sion  of  the  territorial  government,  the  South  would 
be  at  an  obvious  disadvantage,  if  the  homeless  aliens 
in  the  North  could  be  colonized  in  Kansas,  for  there 
was  no  appreciable  alien  population  in  the  Southern 
States.2  So  it  was  that  Clayton's  amendment,  to  re 
strict  the  right  to  vote  and  to  hold  office  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  received  the  solid  vote  of  the  South 
in  the  Senate.  It  is  significant  that  Douglas  voted  with 
his  section  on  this  important  issue.  There  can  be  no 
better  proof  of  his  desire  that  freedom  should  prevail 
in  the  new  Territories.  The  Clayton  amendment,  how 
ever,  passed  the  Senate  by  a  close  vote.3 

On  the  2d  of  March  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  went 
to  a  third  reading  by  a  vote  of  twenty-nine  to  twelve ; 
its  passage  was  thus  assured.4  Debate  continued,  how 
ever,  during  the  afternoon  and  evening  of  the  next  day. 
Friends  of  the  bill  had  agreed  that  it  should  be  brought 
to  a  vote  on  this  night.  The  privilege  of  closing  the 
debate  belonged  to  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 

*See  remarks  of  Bell;  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  414-415; 
and  also  later,  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  937. 

2  See  remarks  of  Atchison,  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  302. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  298.     *Ibid.,  p.  302. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  251 

Territories;  but  in  view  of  the  lateness  of  the  hour, 
he  offered  to  waive  his  privilege  and  let  a  vote  be 
taken.  Voices  were  raised  in  protest,  however,  and 
Douglas  yielded  to  the  urgent  request  of  his  friends.1 
The  speech  of  Douglas  was  a  characteristic  perform 
ance.  It  abounded  in  repetitions,  and  it  can  hardly 
be  said  to  have  contributed  much  to  the  understanding 
of  the  issues.  Yet  it  was  a  memorable  effort,  because 
it  exhibited  the  magnificent  fighting  qualities  of  the 
man.  He  was  completely  master  of  himself.  He  per 
mitted  interruptions  by  his  opponents ;  he  invited  them ; 
indeed,  at  times,  he  welcomed  them;  but  at  no  time 
was  he  at  a  loss  for  a  reply.  Dialectically  he  was  on 
this  occasion  more  than  a  match  for  Chase  and  Seward. 
There  were  no  studied  effects  in  his  oratory.  Knowing 
himself  to  be  addressing  a  wider  audience  than  the 
Senate  chamber  and  its  crowded  galleries,  he  appealed 
with  intuitive  keenness  to  certain  fundamental  traits 
in  his  constituents.  Americans  admire  self-reliance 
even  in  an  opponent,  and  the  spectacle  of  a  man  fight 
ing  against  personal  injustice  is  often  likely  to  make 
them  forget  the  principle  for  which  he  stands.  So 
Seward,  who  surely  had  no  love  for  Douglas  and  no 
respect  for  his  political  creed,  was  moved  to  exclaim 
in  frank  admiration,  "I  hope  the  Senator  will  yield 
for  a  moment,  because  I  have  never  had  so  much  re 
spect  for  him  as  I  have  tonight. ' '  When  Chase  assured 
Douglas  that  he  always  purposed  to  treat  the  Senator 
from  Illinois  with  entire  courtesy,  Douglas  retorted: 
"The  Senator  says  that  he  never  intended  to  do  me 
injustice.  . .  .  Sir,  did  he  not  say  in  the  same  document 
to  which  I  have  already  alluded,  that  I  was  engaged, 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  325. 


252  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

with  others,  4n  a  criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights,' 
'in  an  atrocious  plot'!  ....  Did  he  not  say  everything 
calculated  to  produce  and  bring  upon  my  head  all  the 
insults  to  which  I  have  been  subjected  publicly  and 
privately — not  even  excepting  the  insulting  letters 
which  I  have  received  from  his  constituents,  rejoicing 
at  my  domestic  bereavements,  and  praying  that  other 
and  similar  calamities  may  befall  me?"1 

In  much  the  same  way,  he  turned  upon  Sumner,  as 
the  collaborator  of  the  Appeal.  Here  was  one  who  had 
begun  his  career  as  an  Abolitionist  in  the  Senate,  with 
the  words  "Strike  but  hear  me  first,"  but  who  had 
helped  to  close  the  doors  of  Faneuil  Hall  against 
Webster,  when  he  sought  to  speak  in  self-defense  in 
1850,  and  who  now — such  was  the  implication — was 
denying  simple  justice  to  another  patriot.2 

Personalities  aside,  the  burden  of  his  speech  was  the 
reassertion  of  his  principle  of  popular  sovereignty. 
He  showed  how  far  he  had  traveled  since  the  Fourth 
of  January  in  no  way  more  strikingly,  than  when  he 
called  in  question  the  substantive  character  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  In  his  discussion  of  the  legis 
lative  history  of  the  Missouri  acts,  he  easily  convicted 
both  Chase  and  Seward  of  misapprehensions;  but  he 
refused  to  recognize  the  truth  of  Chase's  words,  that 
"the  facts  of  the  transaction  taken  together  and  as 
understood  by  the  country  for  more  than  thirty  years, 
constitute  a  compact  binding  in  moral  force,"  though 
expressed  only  in  the  terms  of  ordinary  statutes.  So 
far  had  Douglas  gone  in  his  advocacy  of  his  measure 
that  he  had  lost  the  measure  of  popular  sentiment. 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  332. 

2  Hid.,  p.  332. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  253 

He  was  so  confident  of  himself  and  his  cause,  so  well- 
assured  that  he  had  sacrificed  nothing  but  an  empty 
form,  in  repealing  the  slavery  restriction,  that  he  for 
got  the  popular  mind  does  not  so  readily  cast  aside 
its  prejudices  and  grasp  substance  in  preference  to 
form.  The  combative  instinct  in  him  was  strong.  He 
had  entered  upon  a  quarrel ;  he  would  acquit  himself 
well.  Besides,  he  had  supreme  confidence  that  popular 
intelligence  would  slowly  approve  his  course. 

Perhaps  Douglas's  greatest  achievement  on  this 
occasion  was  in  coining  a  phrase  which  was  to  become 
a  veritable  slogan  in  succeeding  years.  That  which 
i  had  hitherto  been  dubbed  "squatter  sovereignty,'' 
!  Douglas  now  dignified  with  the  name  "popular  sov- 
I  ereignty,"  and  provided  with  a  pedigree.  "This  was 
the  principle  upon  which  the  colonies  separated  from 
the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  the  principle  upon  which 
I  the  battles  of  the  Eevolution  were  fought,  and  the  prin 
ciple  jupon  which  our  republican  system  was  founded, 
....  The  Eevolution  grew  out  of  the  assertion  of  the 
right  on  the  part  of  the  imperial  government  to  inter 
fere  with  the  internal  affairs  and  domestic  concerns  of 
the  colonies. ...  I  will  not  weary  the  Senate  in  multiply 
ing  evidence  upon  this  point.  It  is  apparent  that  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  had  its  origin  in  the  vio 
lation  of  the  great  fundamental  principle  which  secured 
to  the  people  of  the  colonies  the  right  to  regulate  their 
own  domestic  affairs  in  their  own  way;  and  that  the 
Eevolution  resulted  in  the  triumph  of  that  principle, 
and  the  recognition  of  the  right  asserted  by  it."1 

In  conclusion,  Douglas  said  with  perfect  truthful 
ness:  "I  have  not  brought  this  question  forward  as  a 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  337. 


254  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

Northern  man  or  as  a  Southern  man.  I  am  unwilling  to 
recognize  such  divisions  and  distinctions.  I  have 
brought  it  forward  as  an  American  Senator,  represent 
ing  a  State  which  is  true  to  this  principle,  and  which 
has  approved  of  my  action  in  respect  to  the  Nebraska 
bill.  I  have  broughtit  forward  not  as  an  act  of  justice 
to  the  South  more  than  to  the  North.  I  have  presented 
it  especially  as  an  act  of  justice  to  the  people  of  those 
Territories,  and  of  the  States  to  be  formed  therefrom, 
now  and  in  all  time  to  come."1 

Nor  did  he  seem  to  entertain  a  doubt  as  to  the  uni 
versal  appeal  which  his  principle  would  make:  "I 
say  frankly  that,  in  my  opinion,  this  measure  will  be 
as  popular  at  the  North  as  at  the  South,  when  its 
provisions  and  principles  shall  have  been  fully  de 
veloped  and  become  well  understood.  The  people  at 
the  North  are  attached  to  the  principles  of  self-govern 
ment;  and  you  cannot  convince  them  that  that  is  self- 
government  which  deprives  a  people  of  the  right  of 
legislating  for  themselves,  and  compels  them  to  receive 
laws  which  are  forced  upon  them  by  a  legislature  in 
which  they  are  not  represented.  "2 

The  rising  indignation  at  the  North  against  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  felt  much  more  directly  in 
the  House  than  in  the  Senate.  So  strong  was  the 
counter-current  that  the  Senate  bill  was  at  first  re 
ferred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  thus  buried 
for  weeks  under  a  mass  of  other  bills.  Many  believed 
that  the  bill  had  received  a  quietus  for  the  session.  Not 
so  Douglas  and  his  friend  Eichardson  of  Illinois,  who 
was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories.  With 
a  patience  born  of  long  parliamentary  experience, 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  338.  2  Ibid.,  p.  338. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  255 

they  bided  their  time.  In  the  meantime,  every  possible 
influence  was  brought  to  bear  upon  recalcitrant  Demo 
crats.  And  just  here  the  wisdom  of  Douglas,  in  first 
securing  the  support  of  the  administration,  was  vindi 
cated.  All  those  devices  were  invoked  which  President 
and  cabinet  could  employ  through  the  use  of  the 
Federal  patronage,  so  that  when  Eichardson,  on  the 
8th  of  May,  called  upon  the  House  to  lay  aside  one  by 
one  the  eighteen  bills  which  preceded  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  he  was  assured  of  a  working  majority. 
The  House  bill  having  thus  been  reached,  Eichardson 
substituted  for  it  the  Senate  bill,  minus  the  Clayton 
amendment.  When  he  then  announced  that  only  four 
days  would  be  allowed  for  debate,  the  obstructionists 
could  no  longer  contain  themselves.  Scenes  of  wild 
excitement  followed.  In  the  end,  the  friends  of  the 
bill  yielded  to  the  demand  for  longer  discussion.  De 
bate  was  prolonged  until  May  22d,  when  the  bill  passed 
by  a  vote  of  113  to  110,  in  the  face  of  bitter  opposition. 

Through  all  these  exciting  days,  Douglas  was  con 
stantly  at  Eichardson 's  side,  cautioning  and  advising. 
He  was  well  within  the  truth  when  he  said,  in  confiden 
tial  chat  with  Madison  Cutts,  "I  passed  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act  myself.  I  had  the  authority  and  power 
of  a  dictator  throughout  the  whole  controversy  in  both 
houses.  The  speeches  were  nothing.  It  was  the 
marshalling  and  directing  of  men,  and  guarding  from 
attacks,  and  with  a  ceaseless  vigilance  preventing 
surprises."1 

The  refusal  of  the  House  to  accept  the  Clayton 
amendment  brought  the  Kansas-Nebraska  measure 
again  before  the  Senate.  Knowing  that  a  refusal  to 

1  Cutts,  Treatise  on  Constitutional^  and  Party  Questions,  pp.  122-123. 


256  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

concur  would  probably  defeat  the  measure  for  the  ses 
sion,  Southern  senators  were  disposed  to  waive  their 
objections  to  allowing  aliens  to  vote  in  the  new  Terri 
tories.  Even  Atchison  was  now  disposed  to  think  the 
matter  of  little  consequence.  Foreigners  were  not  the 
pioneers  in  the  Territories ;  they  followed  the  pioneers. 
He  did  not  complete  his  thought,  but  it  is  unmistak 
able:  therefore,  native  citizens  as  first-comers,  rather 
than  foreigners,  would  probably  decide  the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories  forever.  And  so,  after  two 
days  of  debate,  Douglas  again  had  his  way :  the  Senate 
voted  to  recede  from  the  Clayton  amendment.  v  On  May 
30th,  the  President  signed  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
and  it  became  law.1 

The  outburst  of  wrath  at  the  North  which  accom 
panied  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  did  not 
augur  well  for  the  future  repose  of  the  country.  Doug 
las  had  anticipated  angry  demonstrations ;  but  even  he 
was  disturbed  by  the  vehemence  of  the  protestations 
which  penetrated  to  the  Senate  chamber.  Had  he 
failed  to  gauge  the  depth  of  Northern  public  opinion? 
Senator  Everett  disturbed  the  momentary  quiet  of 
Congress  by  presenting  a  memorial  signed  by  over 
three  thousand  New  England  clergymen,  who,  "in  the 
name  of  Almighty  God,"  protested  against  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act  as  a  great  moral  wrong  and  as  a  breach 
of  faith.  This  brought  Douglas  to  his  feet.  With 
fierce  invective  he  declared  this  whole  movement  was 
instigated  by  the  circulars  sent  out  by  the  Abolition 
confederates  in  the  Senate.  These  preachers  had  been 

*That  the  President  believed  with  Douglas  that  the  benefits  of  the 
Act  would  inure  to  freedom,  is  vouched  for  by  ex-Senator  Clemens  of 
Alabama.  See  Illinois  State  Register,  April  6,  1854. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  257 

led  by  an  atrocious  falsehood  "to  desecrate  the  pulpit, 
and  prostitute  the  sacred  desk  to  the  miserable  and 
corrupting  influence  of  party  politics. "  What  right 
had  these  misguided  men  to  speak  in  the  name  of 
Almighty  God  upon  a  political  question?  It  was  an 
attempt  to  establish  in  this  country  the  doctrine  that 
clergymen  have  a  peculiar  right  to  determine  the  will 
of  God  in  legislative  matters.  This  was  theocracy.1 

Some  weeks  later,  Douglas  himself  presented  another 
protest,  signed  by  over  five  hundred  clergymen  of  the 
Northwest  and  accompanied  by  resolutions  which  de 
nounced  the  Senator  from  Illinois  for  his  "want  of 
courtesy  and  reverence  toward  man  and  God."2  His 
comments  upon  this  protest  were  not  calculated  to 
restore  him  to  favor  among  these  "divinely  appointed 
ministers  for  the  declaration  and  enforcement  of  God's 
will."  His  public  letter  to  them,  however,  was  much 
more  creditable,  for  in  it  he  avoided  abusive  language 
and  appealed  frankly  to  the  sober  sense  of  the  clergy.3 
Of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  he  said 
again  that  it  was  necessary,  "in  order  to  recognize 
the  great  principle  of  self-government  and  State 
equality.  It  does  not  vary  the  question  in  any  degree, 
that  human  slavery,  in  your  opinion,  is  a  great  moral 
wrong.  If  so,  it  is  not  the  only  wrong  upon  which  the 
people  of  each  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  this 
Union  are  called  upon  to  act.  .  .  .  You  think  you  are 
abundantly  competent  to  decide  this  question  now  and 
forever.  If  you  should  remove  to  Nebraska,  with  a 
view  of  making  it  your  permanent  home,  would  you  be 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  618,  621. 
*Ibid.,  App.,  p.  654. 
*  Ibid.,  App.,  pp.  657-661. 
17 


258  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

any  less  competent  to  decide  it  when  you  should  have 
arrived  in  the  country?-"1 

The  obloquy  which  Douglas  encountered  in  Wash 
ington  was  mere  child's  play,  as  compared  with  the 
storm  of  abuse  that  met  him  on  his  return  to  Chicago. 
He  afterwards  said  that  he  could  travel  from  Boston 
to  Chicago  by  the  light  of  his  own  effigies.2  ' '  Traitor, ' 9 
'•Arnold," — with  a  suggestion  that  he  had  the  blood 
of  Benedict  Arnold  in  his  veins, — "Judas,"  were 
epithets  hurled  at  him  from  desk  and  pulpit.  He  was 
presented  with  thirty  pieces  of  silver  by  some  indig 
nant  females  in  an  Ohio  village.3  So  incensed  were 
the  people  of  Chicago,  that  his  friends  advised  him 
not  to  return,  fearing  that  he  would  be  assaulted.4 
But  fear  was  a  sensation  that  he  had  never  experienced. 
He  went  to  Chicago  confident  that  he  could  silence  op 
position  as  he  had  done  four  years  before.5 

Three  or  four  days  after  his  return,  he  announced 
that  on  the  night  of  September  1st,  he  would  address 
his  constituents  in  front  of  North  Market  Hall.  The 
announcement  occasioned  great  excitement.  The  op 
position  press  cautioned  their  readers  not  to  be 
deceived  by  his  sophistries,  and  hinted  broadly  at  the 
advisability  of  breaking  up  the  meeting.6  Many  friends 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  661. 

2  Speech  at  Wooster,  Ohio,  1859,  Philadelphia  Press,  September  26, 
1859. 

8Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  p.  496. 

4Cutts,  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  p.   98. 

8 ' '  I  speak  to  the  people  of  Chicago  on  Friday  next,  September  1,  on 
Nebraska.  They  threaten  a  mob  but  I  have  no  fears.  All  will  be 
right ....  Come  up  if  you  can  and  bring  our  friends  with  you. ' ;  MS. 
Letter,  Douglas  to  Lanphier,  August  25,  1854. 

"Davidson  and  Stuv4,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  640. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT  259 

of  Douglas  believed  that  personal  violence  was  threat 
ened.  During  the  afternoon  flags  were  hung  at  half 
mast  on  the  lake  boats ;  bells  were  tolled,  as  the  crowds 
began  to  gather  in  the  dusk  of  the  evening ;  some  public 
calamity  seemed  to  impend.  At  a  quarter  past  eight, 
Douglas  began  to  address  the  people.  He  was  greeted 
with  hisses.  He  paused  until  these  had  subsided.  But 
no  sooner  did  he  begin  again  than  bedlam  broke  loose. 
For  over  two  hours  he  wrestled  with  the  mob,  appeal 
ing  to  their  sense  of  fairness;  but  he  could  not  gain 
a  hearing.  Finally,  for  the  first  time  in  his  career, 
he  was  forced  to  admit  defeat.  Drawing  his  watch  from 
his  pocket  and  observing  that  the  hour  was  late,  he 
shouted,  in  an  interval  of  comparative  quiet,  "It  is 
now  Sunday  morning — I'll  go  to  church,  and  you  may 
go  to  Hell !"  At  the  imminent  risk  of  his  life,  he  went 
to  his  carriage  and  was  driven  through  the  crowds  to 
his  hotel.1 

^heahan,  Douglas,  pp.   271-273.     Cutts,   Constitutional   and  Party 
Questions,  pp.  98-101.     New  York  Times,  September  6,  1854. 


CHAPTEE  XII 

BLACK  EEPUBLICANISM 

The  passing  of  the  Whig  party  after  its  defeat  m 
the  election  of  1852,  must  be  counted  among  the  most 
momentous  facts  in  our  political  history.  Whatever 
were  its  errors,  whatever  its  shortcomings,  it  was  at 
least  a  national  organization,  with  a  membership  that 
embraced  anti-slavery  Northerners  and  slave-holding 
Southerners,  Easterners  and  Westerners.  As  events 
proved,  there  was  no  national  organization  to  take  its 
place.  One  of  the  two  political  ties  had  snapped  that 
had  held  together  North  and  South.  The  Democratic 
party  alone  could  lay  claim  to  a  national  organization 
and  membership. 

Party  has  been  an  important  factor  in  maintaining 
national  unity.  The  dangers  to  the  Union  from  rapid 
territorial  expansion  have  not  always  been  realized. 
The  attachment  of  new  Western  communities  to  the 
Union  has  too  often  been  taken  as  a  matter  of  course. 
Even  when  the  danger  of  separation  was  small,  the 
isolation  and  provincialism  of  the  new  West  was  a  real 
menace  to  national  welfare.  Social  institutions  did  their 
part  in  integrating  East  and  West ;  but  the  politically 
integrating  force  was  supplied  by  party.  Through  their 
membership  in  national  party  organizations,  the  most 
remote  Western  pioneers  were  energized  to  think  and 
act  on  national  issues.1  In  much  the  same  way,  the 

This  aspect  of  party  has  been  treated  at  greater  length  in  an 
article  by  the  writer  entitled  "The  Nationalizing  Influence  of  Party/' 
Tale  Beview,  November,  1906. 


BLACK  REPUBLICANISM  261 

great  party  organizations  retarded  the  growth  of 
sectionalism  at  the  South.  The  very  fact  that  party 
ties  held  long  after  social  institutions  had  been  broken 
asunder,  proves  their  superior  cohesion  and  nationaliz 
ing  power.  The  inertia  of  parties  during  the  pro 
longed  slavery  controversy  was  an  element  of  strength. 
Because  these  formal  organizations  did  not  lend  them 
selves  readily  to  radical  policies,  they  provided  a 
frame-work,  within  which  adjustments  of  differences 
were  effected  without  danger  to  the  Union.  Had  Aboli 
tionists  of  the  radical  type  taken  possession  of  the 
organization  of  either  party,  can  it  be  doubted  that  the 
Union  would  have  been  imperiled  much  earlier  than  it 
was,  and  very  probably  when  it  could  not  have  with 
stood  the  shock? 

No  one  who  views  history  calmly  will  maintain,  that 
it  would  have  been  well  for  either  the  radical  or  the 
conservative  to  have  been  dominant  permanently.  If 
the  radical  were  always  able  to  give  application  to  his 
passing,  restless  humors,  society  would  lose  its  co 
herence.  If  the  conservative  always  had  his  way, 
civilization  would  stagnate.  It  was  a  fortunate  cir 
cumstance  that  neither  the  Whig  nor  the  Democratic 
party  was  composed  wholly  either  of  radicals  or  con 
servatives.  Party  action  was  thus  a  resultant.  If  it 
was  neither  so  radical  as  the  most  radical  could  desire, 
nor  so  conservative  as  the  ultra-conservative  wished,  at 
least  it  safeguarded  the  Union  and  secured  the  poli 
tical  achievements  of  the  past.  Moreover,  the  two 
great  party  organizations  had  done  much  to  assimilate 
the  foreign  elements  injected  into  our  population.  No 
doubt  the  politician  who  cultivated  "the  Irish  vote" 
or  "the  German  vote,"  was  obeying  no  higher  law  than 


262  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

his  own  interests ;  but  his  activities  did  much  to  pro 
mote  that  fusion  of  heterogeneous  elements  which  has 
been  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  phenomena  of 
American  society.  With  the  disappearance  of  the 
Whig  party,  one  of  the  two  great  agencies  in  the  dis 
ciplining  and  educating  of  the  immigrant  was  lost. 

For  a  time  the  Native  American  party  seemed  likely 
to  take  the  place  of  the  moribund  Whig  party.  Many 
Whigs  whose  loyalty  had  grown  cold  but  who  would 
not  go  over  to  the  enemy,  took  refuge  in  the  new  party. 
But  Native  Americanism  had  no  enduring  strength. 
Its  tenets  and  its  methods  were  in  flat  contradiction 
to  true  American  precedents.  Greeley  was  right  when 
he  said  of  the  new  party,  "It  would  seem  as  devoid  of 
the  elements  of  persistence  as  an  anti-cholera  or  an 
anti-potato-rot  party  would  be."  By  its  avowed  hos 
tility  to  Catholics  and  foreigners,  by  its  insistence  upon 
America  for  Americans,  and  by  its  secrecy,  it  forfeited 
all  real  claims  to  succeed  the  Whig  party  as  a  national 
organization. 

After  the  downfall  of  the  Whig  party,  then,  the 
Democratic  party  stood  alone  as  a  truly  national  party, 
preserving  the  integrity  of  its  national  organization 
and  the  bulk  of  its  legitimate  members.  But  the  events 
of  President  Pierce 's  administration  threatened  to  be 
its  undoing.  If  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  served  to 
unite  outwardly  the  Northern  and  Southern  wings  of 
the  party,  it  served  also  to  crystallize  those  anti-slavery 
elements  which  had  hitherto  been  held  in  solution. 
An  anti-Nebraska  coalition  was  the  outcome.  Out  of 
this  opposition  sprang  eventually  the  Eepublican 
party,  which  was,  therefore,  in  its  inception,  national 
neither  in  its  organization  nor  in  its  membership. 


BLACK  KEPUBLICANISM  263 

For  "  Know-No  thing!  sm,"  as  Native  Americanism 
was  derisively  called,  Douglas  had  exhibited  the 
liveliest  antipathy.  Shortly  after  the  triumph  of  the 
Know-Nothings  in  the  municipal  elections  of  Phila 
delphia,  he  was  called  upon  to  give  the  Independence 
Day  address  in  the  historic  Independence  Square.1 
With  an  audacity  rarely  equalled,  he  seized  the  occasion 
to  defend  the  great  principle  of  self-government  as 
incorporated  in  the  Nebraska  bill,  just  become  law, 
and  to  beard  Know-No thingism  in  its  den.  Under 
guise  of  defending  national  institutions  and  American 
principles,  he  turned  his  oration  into  what  was  virtu 
ally  the  first  campaign  speech  of  the  year  in  behalf 
of  Democracy.  Never  before  were  the  advantages  of  a 
party  name  so  apparent.  Under  his  skillful  touch  the 
cause  of  popular  government,  democracy,  religious 
and  civil  liberty,  became  confounded  with  the  cause 
of  Democracy,  the  only  party  of  the  nation  which  stood 
opposed  to  "the  allied  forces  of  Abolitionism,  Whig- 
ism,  Nativeism,  and  religious  intolerance,  under  what 
ever  name  or  on  whatever  field  they  may  present  them 
selves."2 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Douglas  voiced  his  inmost 
feeling,  when  he  declared  that  "to  proscribe  a  man 
in  this  country  on  account  of  his  birthplace  or  religious- 
faith  is  revolting  to  our  sense  of  justice  and  right.  "a 
In  his  defense  of  religious  toleration  he  rose  to  heights 
of  real  eloquence. 

Douglas  paid  dearly  for  this  assault  upon  Know- 
Nothingism.  The  order  had  organized  lodges  also  in 
the  Northwest,  and  when  Douglas  returned  to  his  own. 

1  Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  264-265. 

id,  p.  271.  *IUd.,  p.  269. 


264  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

constituency  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  lie 
found  the  enemy  in  possession  of  his  own  redoubts. 
With  some  show  of  reason,  he  afterward  attributed 
the  demonstration  against  him  in  Chicago  to  the  ma 
chinations  of  the  Know-Nothings.  His  experience 
with  the  mob  left  no  manner  of  doubt  in  his  mind  that 
Know-No thingism,  and  not  hostility  to  his  Kansas- 
Nebraska  policy,  was  responsible  for  his  failure  to 
command  a  hearing.1 

But  Douglas  was  mistaken,  or  he  deceived  himself, 
when  he  sought  in  the  same  fashion  to  explain  away 
the  opposition  which  he  encountered  as  he  traveled 
through  the  northern  counties  of  the  State.  Malcon 
tents  from  both  parties,  but  chiefly  anti-slavery  Whigs, 
Free-Soilers,  and  Abolitionists,  were  drawing  together 
in  common  hostility  to  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise.  Mass  conventions  were  summoned,  irrespect 
ive  of  party,  in  various  counties;  and  they  gave  no 
uncertain  expression  to  their  hatred  of  slavery  and  the 
slave-power.  These  were  the  counties  most  largely 
peopled  by  the  New  England  immigrants.  Anti-Neb 
raska  platforms  were  adopted;  and  fusion  candidates 
put  in  nomination  for  State  and  congressional  office. 
In  the  central  and  southern  counties,  the  fusion  was 
somewhat  less  complete ;  but  finally  an  anti-Nebraska 
State  convention  was  held  at  Springfield,  which  nom 
inated  a  candidate  for  State  Treasurer,  the  only  State 
officer  to  be  elected.2  For  the  first  time  in  many  years, 
the  overthrow  of  the  Democratic  party  seemed  immi 
nent. 

However  much  Douglas  may  have  misjudged  the 

1Cutts,  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  pp.  98-99. 
2  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  pp.  641-643. 


BLACK  REPUBLICANISM  265 

causes  for  this  fusion  movement  at  the  outset,  he  was 
not  long  blind  as  to  its  implications.  On  every  hand 
there  were  symptoms  of  disaffection.  Personal  friends 
turned  their  backs  upon  him;  lifelong  associates 
refused  to  follow  his  lead;  even  the  rank  and  file 
of  his  followers  seemed  infected  with  the  prevail 
ing  epidemic  of  distrust.  With  the  instinct  of  a  born 
leader  of  men,  Douglas  saw  that  the  salvation  of  him 
self  and  his  party  lay  in  action.  The  elan  of  his 
forces  must  be  excited  by  the  signal  to  ride  down  the 
enemy.  Sounding  the  charge,  he  plunged  into  the 
thick  of  the  fray.  For  two  months,  he  raided  the 
country  of  the  enemy  in  northern  Illinois,  and  dashed 
from  point  to  point  in  the  central  counties  where  his 
loyal  friends  were  hard  pressed.1  It  was  from  first  to 
last  a  tempestuous  conflict  that  exactly  suited  the  im 
petuous,  dashing  qualities  of  "the  Little  Giant." 

In  the  Sixth  Congressional  District,  Douglas  found 
his  friend  Harris  fighting  desperately  with  his  back 
against  the  wall.  His  opponent,  Yates,  was  a  candi 
date  for  re-election,  with  the  full  support  of  anti- 
Nebraska  men  like  Trumbull  and  Lincoln,  whom  the 
passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  had  again  drawn 
into  politics.  While  the  State  Fair  was  in  progress 
at  Springfield,  both  candidates  strained  every  nerve 
to  win  votes.  Douglas  was  summoned  to  address  the 
goodly  body  of  Democratic  yeomen,  who  were  keenly 
alive  to  the  political,  as  well  as  to  the  bucolic,  oppor 
tunities  which  the  capital  afforded  at  this  interesting 
season.  Douglas  spoke  to  a  large  gathering  in  the 
State  House  on  October  3d.  Next  day  the  Fusion- 

1  See  items  scattered  through  the  Illinois  State  Eegister  for  these 
exciting  weeks. 


266  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

ists  put  forward  Lincoln  to  answer  him;  and  when 
Lincoln  had  spoken  for  nearly  four  hours,  Douglas 
again  took  the  stand  and  held  his  audience  for  an  hour 
and  a  half  longer.1  Those  were  days  when  the  stay 
ing  powers  of  speakers  were  equalled  only  by  the 
patience  of  their  hearers. 

Like  those  earlier  encounters,  whose  details  have 
passed  into  the  haze  of  tradition,  this  lacks  a  trust 
worthy  chronicler.  It  would  seem,  however,  as  though 
the  dash  and  daring  of  Douglas  failed  to  bear  down  the 
cool,  persistent  opposition  of  his  antagonist.  Douglas 
should  have  known  that  the  hazards  in  his  course  were 
reared  by  his  own  hand.  Whatever  other  barriers 
blocked  his  way,  Nebraska-ism  was  the  most  formid 
able  ;  but  this  he  would  not  concede. 

A  curious  story  has  connected  itself  with  this  chance 
encounter  of  the  rivals.  Alarmed  at  the  effectiveness 
of  Lincoln's  attack,  so  runs  the  legend,  Douglas  begged 
him  not  to  enter  the  campaign,  promising  that  he 
likewise  would  be  silent  thereafter.  Aside  from  the 
palpable  improbability  of  this  "Peoria  truce/'  it 
should  be  noted  that  Lincoln  accepted  an  invitation 
to  speak  at  Lacon  next  day,  without  so  much  as  refer 
ring  to  this  agreement,  while  Douglas  continued  his 
campaign  with  unremitting  energy.2  If  Douglas  ex 
hibited  fear  of  an  adversary  at  this  time,  it  is  the  only 
instance  in  his  career. 

1  See  Illinois  State  Register,  October  6,  1854,  and  subsequent  issues. 

2  Nearly  every  biographer  of  Lincoln  has  noted  this  apparent  breach 
of  agreement  on  the  part  of  Douglas,  but  none  has  questioned  the  ac 
curacy  of  the  story,  though  the  unimaginative  Lamon  betrays  some  mis 
givings,  as  he  records  Lincoln's  course  after  the  "Peoria  truce. "     See 
Lamon,  Lincoln,  p.  358.     The  statement  of  Irwin   (in  Herndon-Weik, 
Lincoln,   II,  p.   329)    does  not  seem  credible,  in  the  light  of  all  the 
attendant  circumstances. 


BLACK  REPUBLICANISM  267 

The  outcome  of  the  elections  gave  the  Democrats 
food  for  thought.  Five  out  of  nine  congressional  dis 
tricts  had  chosen  anti-Nebraska  or  Fusion  candidates ; 
the  other  four  returned  Democrats  to  Congress  by 
reduced  pluralities.1  To  be  sure,  the  Democrats  had 
elected  their  candidate  for  the  State  Treasury;  but 
this  was  poor  consolation,  if  the  legislature,  as  seemed 
probable,  should  pass  from  their  control.  A  successor 
to  Senator  Shields  would  be  chosen  by  this  body ;  and 
the  choice  of  an  anti-Nebraska  man  would  be  as  gall 
and  wormwood  to  the  senior  senator.  In  the  country 
at  large,  such  an  outcome  would  surely  be  interpreted 
as  a  vote  of  no  confidence.  In  the  light  of  these  events, 
Democrats  were  somewhat  chastened  in  spirit,  in  spite 
of  apparent  demonstrations  of  joy.  Even  Douglas 
felt  called  upon  to  vindicate  his  course  at  the  banquet 
given  in  his  honor  in  Chicago,  November  9th.  He  was 
forced  to  admit — and  for  him  it  was  an  unwonted 
admission — that  "the  heavens  were  partially  over 
cast." 

For  the  moment  there  was  a  disposition  to  drop 
Shields  in  favor  of  some  Democrat  who  was  not  so 
closely  identified  with  the  Nebraska  bill.  Douglas 
viewed  the  situation  with  undisguised  alarm.  He  urged 
his  friends,  however,  to  stick  to  Shields.  "The  elec 
tion  of  any  other  man,"  he  wrote  truthfully,  "would 
be  deemed  not  only  a  defeat,  but  an  ungrateful  deser 
tion  of  him,  when  all  the  others  who  have  voted  with 
him  have  been  sustained."2  It  was  just  this  fine 
spirit  of  loyalty  that  made  men  his  lifelong  friends 
and  steadfast  followers  through  thick  and  thin.  "Our 

1  Whiff  Almanac  1855. 

3  MS.  Letter,  Douglas  to  Lanphier,  December  18,  1854. 


268  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

friends  snould  stand  by  Shields, "  he  continued,  "and 
throw  the  responsibility  on  the  Whigs  of  beating  him 
because  he  ivas  born  in  Ireland.  The  Nebraska  fight 
is  over,  and  Know-No thingism  has  taken  its  place  as 
the  chief  issue  in  the  future.  If  therefore  Shields  shall 
be  beaten  it  will  [be]  apparent  to  the  people  &  to  the 
whole  country  that  a  gallant  soldier,  and  a  faithful 
public  servant  has  been  stricken  down  because  of  the 
place  of  his  birth."  This  was  certainly  shrewd,  and, 
measured  by  the  tone  of  American  public  life,  not 
altogether  reprehensible,  politics.  Douglas  anticipated 
that  the  Whigs  would  nominate  Lincoln  and  "stick 
to  him  to  the  bitter  end,"  while  the  Free-Soilers  and 
anti-Nebraska  Democrats  would  hold  with  equal  per 
sistence  to  Bissell,  in  which  case  either  Bissell  would 
ultimately  get  the  Whig  vote  or  there  would  be  no 
election.  Sounding  the  trumpet  call  to  battle,  Doug 
las  told  his  friends  to  nail  Shields'  flag  to  the  mast 
and  never  to  haul  it  down.  "We  are  sure  to  triumph 
in  the  end  on  the  great  issue.  Our  policy  and  duty 
require  us  to  stand  firm  by  the  issues  in  the  late  elec 
tion,  and  to  make  no  bargains,  no  alliances,  no  con 
cessions  to  any  of  the  allied  isms." 

When  the  legislature  organized  in  January,  the 
Democrats,  to  their  indescribable  alarm,  found  the 
Fusion  forces  in  control  of  both  houses.  The  election 
was  postponed  until  February.  Meantime  Douglas 
cautioned  his  trusty  lieutenant  in  no  event  to  leave 
Springfield  for  even  a  day  during  the  session.1  On  the 
first  ballot  for  senator,  Shields  received  41  votes; 
Lincoln  45 ;  Trumbull,  an  anti-Nebraska  Democrat,  5 ; 
while  three  Democrats  and  five  Fusionists  scattered 

1  MS.  Letter,  Douglas  to  Lanphier,  December  18,  1854. 


BLACK  REPUBLICANISM  269 

their  votes.  On  the  seventh  ballot,  Shields  fell  out  of 
the  running,  his  place  being  taken  by  Matteson.  On 
the  tenth  ballot,  Lincoln  having  withdrawn,  the  Whig- 
vote  concentrated  on  Trumbull,  who,  with  the  aid  of 
his  unyielding  anti-Nebraska  following,  received  the 
necessary  51  votes  for  an  election.  This  result  left 
many  heart-burnings  among  both  Whigs  and  Demo 
crats,  for  the  former  felt  that  Lincoln  had  been  un 
justly  sacrificed  and  the  latter  looked  upon  Trumbull 
as  little  better  than  a  renegade.1 

The  returns  from  the  elections  in  other  Northern 
States  were  equally  discouraging,  from  the  Demo 
cratic  point  of  view.  Only  seven  out  of  forty-two  who 
had  voted  for  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  were  re- 
elected.  In  the  next  House,  the  Democrats  would  be 
in  a  minority  of  seventy-five.2  The  anti-Nebraska 
leaders  were  not  slow  in  claiming  a  substantial  victory. 
Indeed,  their  demonstrations  of  satisfaction  were  so 
long  and  loud,  when  Congress  reassembled  for  the 
short  session,  that  many  Democrats  found  it  difficult 
to  accept  defeat  good-naturedly.  Douglas,  for  one, 
would  not  concede  defeat,  despite  the  face  of  the  re 
turns.  Men  like  Wade  of  Ohio,  who  enjoyed  chaffing 
their  discomfited  opponents,  took  every  occasion  to 
taunt  the  author  of  the  bill  which  had  been  the  un 
doing  of  his  party.  Douglas  met  their  gibes  by  asking 
whether  there  was  a  single,  anti-Nebraska  candidate 
from  the  free  States  who  did  not  receive  the  Know- 
Nothing  vote.  For  every  Nebraska  man  who  had 
suffered  defeat,  two  anti-Nebraska  candidates  were 

1  Davidson    and    Stuve,    History   of   Illinois,   pp.   689-690;    Sheahan, 
Douglas,  pp.  275-276. 

2  Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  67. 


270  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

defeated  by  the  same  causes.  "The  fact  is,  and  the 
gentleman  knows  it,  that  in  the  free  States  there  has 
been  an  alliance,  I  will  not  say  whether  holy  or  unholy, 
at  the  recent  elections.  In  that  alliance  they  had  a 
crucible  into  which  they  poured  Abolitionism,  Maine 
liquor-lawism,  and  what  there  was  left  of  Northern! 
Whigism,  and  then  the  Protestant  feeling  against  the1 
Catholic,  and  the  native  feeling  against  the  foreigner. 
All  these  elements  were  melted  down  in  that  crucible, 
and  the  result  was  what  was  called  the  Fusion  party. 
That  crucible  ....  was  in  every  instance,  a  Know-Noth 
ing  Lodge."1 

There  was,  indeed,  enough  or  confusion  in  some 
States  to  give  color  to  such  assertions.  Taken  collect 
ively,  however,  the  elections  indicated  unmistakably 
a  widespread  revulsion  against  the  administration  of 
President  Pierce ;  and  it  was  folly  to  contend  that  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  had  not  been  the  prime  cause 
of  popular  resentment.  Douglas  was  so  constituted 
temperamentally  that  he  both  could  not,  and  would  not, 
confront  the  situation  fairly  and  squarely.  This  want 
of  sensitiveness  to  the  force  of  ethical  convictions 
stirring  the  masses,  is  the  most  conspicuous  and  re 
grettable  aspect  of  his  statecraft.  Personally  Doug 
las  had  a  high  sense  of  honor  and  duty;  in  private 
affairs  he  was  scrupulously  honest;  and  if  at  times 
he  was  shifty  in  politics,  he  played  the  game  with 
quite  as  much  fairness  as  those  contemporary  poli 
ticians  who  boasted  of  the  integrity  of  their  motives. 
He  preferred  to  be  frank ;  he  meant  to  deal  justly  by 
all  men.  Even  so,  he  failed  to  understand  the  impel 
ling  power  of  those  moral  ideals  which  border  on  the 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  216. 


BLACK  REPUBLICANISM  271 

unattainable.  For  the  transcendentalist  in  politics  and 
philanthropy,  he  had  only  contempt.  The  propulsive 
force  of  an  idea  in  his  own  mind  depended  wholly  upon 
its  appeal  to  his  practical  judgment.  His  was  the 
philosophy  of  the  attainable.  Eesults  that  were  ap 
proximately  just  and  fair  satisfied  him.  He  was  not  J 
disposed  to  sacrifice  immediate  advantage  to  future 
gain.  His  Celtic  temperament  made  him  think  rapidly ; 
and  what  imagination  failed  to  supply,  quick  wit  made 
good. 

When,  then,  under  the  pressure  of  conditions  for 
which  he  was  not  responsible,  he  yielded  to  the  demand 
for  a  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  he  failed  to 
foresee  that  revulsion  of  moral  sentiment  that  swept 
over  the  North.  It  was  perfectly  clear  to  his  mind, 
that  historically  the  prohibition  of  slavery  by  Federal 
law  had  had  far  less  practical  effect  than  the  North 
believed.  He  was  convinced  that  nearly  all,  if  not  all, 
of  the  great  West  was  dedicated  to  freedom  by  a  law 
which  transcended  any  human  enactment.  Why,  then, 
hold  to  a  mere  form,  when  the  substance  could  be 
otherwise  secured?  Why  should  Northerner  affront 
Southerner  by  imperious  demands,  when  the  same  end 
might  be  attained  by  a  compromise  which  would  not 
cost  either  dear?  Possibly  he  was  not  unwilling  to  let 
New  Mexico  become  slave  Territory,  if  the  greater 
Northwest  should  become  free  by  the  operation  of  the 
same  principle.  Besides,  there  was  the  very  tangible 
advantage  of  holding  his  party  together  by  a  sensible 
agreement,  for  the  sake  of  which  each  faction  yielded 
something. 

Douglas  was  not  blind  to  the  palpable  truth  that  the 
masses  are  swayed  more  by  sentiment  than  logic :  in- 


272  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

deed,  he  Imew  well  enough  how  to  run  through  the 
gamut  of  popular  emotions.  What  did  escape  him 
was  the  almost  religious  depth  of  the  anti-slavery  senti 
ment  in  that  very  stock  from  which  he  himself  had 
sprung.  It  was  not  a  sentiment  that  could  be  bar 
gained  away.  There  was  much  in  it  of  the  inexorable 
obstinacy  of  the  Puritan  faith.  Verging  close  upon 
fanaticism  at  times,  it  swept  away  considerations  of 
time  and  place,  and  overwhelmed  appeals  to  expedi 
ency.  Even  where  the  anti- slavery  spirit  did  not  take 
on  this  extreme  form,  those  whom  it  possessed  were 
reluctant  to  yield  one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  substantial 
gains  which  freedom  had  made. 

It  is  probable  that  with  the  growing  sectionalism, 
North  and  South  would  soon  have  been  at  odds  over  the 
disposition  of  the  greater  Northwest.  Sooner  or  later, 
the  South  must  have  demanded  the  repeal  of  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  or  have  sought  large  concessions 
elsewhere.  But  it  is  safe  to  say  that  no  one  except 
Douglas  could  have  been  found  in  1854,  who  possessed 
the  requisite  parliamentary  qualities,  the  personal  fol 
lowing,  the  influence  in  all  sections, — and  withal,  the 
audacity,  to  propose  and  carry  through  the  policy 
associated  with  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  The  respon 
sibility  for  this  measure  rested  in  a  peculiar  sense 
upon  his  shoulders. 

It  was  in  the  course  of  this  post-election  discussion 
of  February  23d,  that  Wade  insinuated  that  mercen 
ary  motives  were  the  key  to  Douglas 's  conduct.  l  i  Have 
the  people  of  Illinois  forgotten  that  injunction  of  more 
than  heavenly  wisdom,  that  ' Where  a  man's  treasure 
is,  there  will  his  heart  be  also'?"  To  this  unwarranted 
charge,  which  was  current  in  Abolitionist  circles, 


BLACK  REPUBLICANISM  273 

Douglas  made  a  circumstantial  denial.  "I  am  not 
the  owner  of  a  slave  and  never  have  been,  nor  have  I 
ever  received,  and  appropriated  to  my  own  use,  one 
dollar  earned  by  slave-labor."  For  the  first  time,  he 
spoke  of  the  will  of  Colonel  Martin  and  of  the  property 
which  he  had  bequeathed  to  his  daughter  and  to  her 
children.  With  very  genuine  emotion,  which  touched 
even  his  enemies,  he  added,  "God  forbid  that  I  should 
be  understood  by  anyone  as  being  willing  to  cast  from 
me  any  responsibility  that  now  does,  or  has  ever 
attached  to  any  member  of  my  family.  So  long  as 
life  shall  last — and  I  shall  cherish  with  religious 
veneration  the  memories  and  virtues  of  the  sainted 
mother  of  my  children — so  long  as  my  heart  shall  be 
filled  with  parental  solicitude  for  the  happiness  of 
those  motherless  infants,  I  implore  my  enemies  who 
so  ruthlessly  invade  the  domestic  sanctuary,  to  do 
me  the  favor  to  believe,  that  I  have  no  wish,  no  aspira 
tion,  to  be  considered  purer  or  better  than  she,  who 
was,  or  they,  who  are,  slaveholders."1 

When  the  new  Congress  met  in  the  fall  of  1855,  the 
anti-Nebraska  men  drew  closer  together  and  gradually 
assumed  the  name  "Bepublican."  Their  first  victory 
was  the  election  of  their  candidate  for  the  Speaker- 
ship.  They  were  disciplined  by  astute  leaders  under 
the  pressure  of  disorders  in  Kansas.  Before  the  ses 
sion  closed,  they  developed  a  remarkable  degree  of 
cohesion,  while  the  body  of  their  supporters  in  the 
Northern  States  assumed  alarming  proportions.  The 
party  was  not  wholly,  perhaps  not  mainly,  the  product 
of  humanitarian  sentiment.  The  adherence  of  old- 
line  Whig  politicians  like  Seward  suggests  that  there 

1  Globe,  33  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  330. 
18 


274  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

was  some  alloy  in  the  pure  gold  of  Eepublicanism. 
Such  leaders  were  willing  to  make  political  capital 
out  of  the  breakdown  of  popular  sovereignty  in 
Kansas.1  They  were  too  shrewd  to  stake  the  fortune 
of  the  nascent  party  on  a  bold,  constructive  policy. 
They  preferred  to  play  a  waiting  game.  Events  in 
Kansas  came  to  their  aid  in  ways  that  they  could  not 
have  anticipated. 

While  this  re-alignment  of  parties  was  in  progress, 
the  presidential  year  drew  on  apace.  It  behooved  the 
Democrats  to  gather  their  scattered  forces.  The  ad 
vantage  of  organization  was  theirs ;  but  they  suffered 
from  desertions.  The  morale  of  the  party  was  weak 
ened.  To  check  further  desertions  and  to  restore 
confidence,  was  the  aim  of  the  party  whips.  No  one 
had  more  at  stake  than  Douglas.  He  was  on  trial  with 
his  party.  Conscious  of  his  responsibilities,  he  threw 
himself  into  the  light  skirmishing  in  Congress  which 
always  precedes  a  presidential  campaign.  In  this 
partisan  warfare  he  was  clever,  but  not  altogether  ad 
mirable.  One  could  wish  that  he  had  been  less  un 
charitable  and  less  denunciatory ;  but  political  victories 
are  seldom  won  by  unaided  virtue. 

From  the  outset  his  anti-Nebraska  colleague  was 
the  object  of  his  bitterest  gibes,  for  Trumbull  typified 
the  deserter,  who  was  causing  such  alarm  in  the  ranks 
of  the  Democrats.  "I  understand  that  my  colleague 
has  told  the  Senate,"  said  Douglas  contemptuously, 
"that  he  comes  here  as  a  Democrat.  Sir,  that  fact 
will  be  news  to  the  Democracy  of  Illinois.  I  undertake 
to  assert  there  is  not  a  Democrat  in  Illinois  who  will 
not  say  that  such  a  statement  is  a  libel  upon  the  Do 

1  Bhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  97-98,  130,  196. 


BLACK  REPUBLICANISM  275 

mocracy  of  that  State.  When  he  was  elected  he  re 
ceived  every  Abolition  vote  in  the  Legislature  of  Illi 
nois.  He  received  every  Know-Nothing  vote  in  the 
Legislature  of  Illinois.  So  far  as  I  am  advised  and  be 
lieve,  he  received  no  vote  except  from  persons  allied 
to  Abolitionism  or  Know-No thingism.  He  came  here 
as  the  Know-Nothing-Abolition  candidate,  in  opposi 
tion  to  the  united  Democracy  of  his  State,  and  to  the 
Democratic  candidate."1 

When  to  desertion  was  added  association  with 
"  Black  Bepublicans,"  Douglas  found  his  vocabulary 
inadequate  to  express  his  scorn.  Like  most  Demo 
crats  he  was  sensitive  on  the  subject  of  party  nomen 
clature.2  "Bepublican"  was  a  term  which  had  asso 
ciations  with  the  very  father  of  Democracy,  though 
the  party  had  long  since  dropped  the  hyphenated 
title.  But  this  new,  so-called  Bepublican  party  had 
wisely  dropped  the  prefix  " national,"  suggested 
Douglas,  because  "it  is  a  purely  sectional  party,  with 
a  platform  which  cannot  cross  the  Ohio  river,  and  a 
creed  which  inevitably  brings  the  North  and  South 
into  hostile  collision."  In  view  of  the  emphasis  which 
their  platform  put  upon  the  negro,  Douglas  thought 
that  consistency  required  the  substitution  of  the  word 
"Black"  for  "National."  The  Democratic  party,  on 
the  other  hand,  had  no  sympathy  with  those  who  be 
lieved  in  making  the  negro  the  social  and  political  equal 
of  the  white  man.  "Our  people  are  a  white  people; 
our  State  is  a  white  State ;  and  we  mean  to  preserve 
the  race  pure,  without  any  mixture  with  the  negro. 
If  you,"  turning  to  his  Eepublican  opponents,  "wisli 

1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  655. 
'Ifcid,  App.,  p.  391. 


276  STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS 

your  blood  and  that  of  the  African  mingled  in  the 
same  channel,  we  trust  that  you  will  keep  at  a  respect 
ful  distance  from  us,  and  not  try  to  force  that  on  us 
as  one  of  your  domestic  institutions."1  In  such  wise, 
Douglas  labored  to  befog  and  discredit  the  issues  for 
which  the  new  party  stood.  The  demagogue  in  him 
overmastered  the  statesman. 

Douglas  believed  himself — and  with  good  reason — 
to  be  the  probable  nominee  of  his  party  in  the  ap 
proaching  presidential  election.  Several  State  con 
ventions  had  already  declared  for  him.  There  was  no 
other  Democrat,  save  President  Pierce,  whose  name 
was  so  intimately  associated  with  the  policy  of  the 
party  as  expressed  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  Yet, 
while  both  were  in  favor  at  the  South,  neither  Pierce 
nor  Douglas  was  likely  to  secure  the  full  party  vote 
at  the  North.  This  consideration  led  to  a  diversion  in 
favor  of  James  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania.  The 
peculiar  availability  of  this  well-known  Democrat 
consisted  in  his  having  been  on  a  foreign  mission  when 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  under  fire.  Still,  Bu 
chanan  was  reported  " sound"  on  the  essential  fea 
tures  of  this  measure.  Before  the  national  convention 
met,  a  well-organized  movement  was  under  way  to 
secure  the  nomination  of  the  Pennsylvanian.2  Equally 
well-organized  and  even  more  noisy  and  demonstra 
tive  was  the  following  of  Douglas,  as  the  delegates 
began  to  assemble  at  Cincinnati  during  the  first  week 
in  June. 

The  first  ballot  in  the  convention  must  have  been  a 
grievous  disappointment  to  Douglas  and  his  friends. 

1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.  p.  392. 

'Bhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  169-171. 


BLACK  REPUBLICANISM  277 

While  Buchanan  received  135  votes  and  Pierce  122, 
he  could  muster  only  33.  Only  the  Missouri  and  Illinois 
delegations  cast  their  full  vote  for  him.  Of  the  slave 
States,  only  Missouri  and  Kentucky  gave  him  any  sup 
port.  As  the  balloting  continued,  however,  both 
Buchanan  and  Douglas  gained  at  the  expense  of  Pierce. 
After  the  fourteenth  ballot,  Pierce  withdrew,  and  the 
bulk  of  his  support  was  turned  over  to  Douglas.  Cass, 
the  fourth  candidate  before  the  convention,  had  been 
from  the  first  out  of  the  running,  his  highest  vote  being 
only  seven.  On  the  sixteenth  ballot,  Buchanan  re 
ceived  168  and  Douglas  122.  Though  Buchanan  now 
had  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the  convention,  he  still 
lacked  thirty  of  the  two-thirds  required  for  a  nomina 
tion.1 

It  was  at  this  juncture  that  Douglas  telegraphed 
to  his  friend  Eichardson,  who  was  chairman  of  the 
Illinois  delegation  and  a  prominent  figure  in  the  con 
vention,  instructing  him  to  withdraw  his  name.  The 
announcement  was  received  with  loud  protestations. 
The  dispatch  was  then  read :  "If  the  withdrawal  of  my 
name  will  contribute  to  the  harmony  of  our  party  or 
the  success  of  our  cause,  I  hope  you  will  not  hesitate 
to  take  the  step  ....  if  Mr.  Pierce  or  Mr.  Buchanan, 
or  any  other  statesman  who  is  faithful  to  the  great 
issues  involved  in  the  contest,  shall  receive  a  majority 
of  the  convention,  I  earnestly  hope  that  all  my  friends 
will  unite  in  insuring  him  two-thirds,  and  then  making 

^tanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  p.  265.  Douglas  received 
73  votes  from  the  slave  States  and  Buchanan  47;  Buchanan  received  28 
votes  in  New  England,  Douglas  13;  Buchanan  received  41  votes  from 
the  Northwest,  Douglas  19.  The  loss  of  Buchanan  in  the  South  was  more 
than  made  good  by  his  votes  from  the  Middle  Atlantic  States. 


278  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

his  nomination  unanimous.  Let  no  personal  considera 
tions  disturb  the  harmony  or  endanger  the  triumph 
of  our  principles."1  Very  reluctantly  the  supporters 
of  Douglas  obeyed  their  chief,  and  on  the  seventeenth 
ballot,  James  Buchanan  received  the  unanimous  vote 
of  the  convention.  For  the  second  time  Douglas  lost 
the  nomination  of  his  party. 

Douglas  bore  himself  admirably.  At  a  mass-meet 
ing  in  Washington,2  he  made  haste  to  pledge  his  sup 
port  to  the  nominee  of  the  convention.  His  generous 
words  of  commendation  of  Buchanan,  as  a  man  pos 
sessing  "wisdom  and  nerve  to  enforce  a  firm  and 
undivided  execution  of  the  laws"  of  the  majority  of 
the  people  of  Kansas,  were  uttered  without  any  ap 
parent  misgivings.  Prophetic  they  certainly  were 
not.  Douglas  could  approve  the  platform  unquali 
fiedly,  for  it  was  a  virtual  indorsement  of  the  prin 
ciple  which  he  had  proclaimed  from  the  housetops 
for  the  greater  part  of  two  years.  "The  American 
Democracy,"  read  the  main  article  in  the  newly 
adopted  resolutions,  "recognize  and  adopt  the  prin 
ciples  contained  in  the  organic  laws  establishing  the 
Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas  as  embodying 
the  only  sound  and  safe  solution  of  the  slavery  ques 
tion,  upon  which  the  great  national  idea  of  the  people 
of  this  whole  country  can  repose  in  its  determined 
conservation  of  the  Union,  and  non-interference  of 
Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Territories  or  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia."3  Douglas  deemed  it  a  cause  for 

1  Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  448-449  j  Proceedings  of  the  National  Demo 
cratic  Convention,  1856. 

2  Washington  Union,  June  7,  1856. 

8  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  p.  267. 


BLACK  REPUBLICANISM  279 

profound  rejoicing  that  the  party  was  at  last  united 
upon  principles  which  could  be  avowed  everywhere, 
North,  South,  East,  and  West.  As  the  only  national 
party  in  the  Republic,  the  Democracy  had  a  great 
mission  to  perform,  for  in  his  opinion  "no  less  than 
the  integrity  of  the  Constitution,  the  preservation  and 
perpetuity  of  the  Union,"  depended  upon  the  result 
of  this  election.1 

No  man  could  have  been  more  magnanimous  under 
defeat  and  so  little  resentful  at  a  personal  slight.  His 
manly  conduct  received  favorable  comment  on  all 
sides.2  He  was  still  the  foremost  figure  in  the  Demo 
cratic  party.  To  be  sure,  James  Buchanan  was  the 
titular  leader,  but  he  stood  upon  a  platform  erected 
by  his  rival.  His  letter  of  acceptance  left  no  doubt 
in  the  minds  of  all  readers  that  he  indorsed  the  letter 
and  the  spirit  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act.3 

A  fortnight  later  the  Eepublican  national  conven 
tion  met  at  Philadelphia,  and  with  great  enthusiasm 
adopted  a  platform  declaring  it  to  be  the  duty  of  Con 
gress  to  prohibit  in  the  Territories  "those  twin  relics 

1  Washington  Union,  June  7,  1856. 

2  Correspondent  to  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  June  12,  1856. 

8  The  letter  read,  ' '  This  legislation  is  founded  upon  principles  as 
ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and  in  accordance  with  them  has 
simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  like  those  of  a  State, 
shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within 
their  limits.  The  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  does  no  more  than  give  the 
force  of  law  to  this  elementary  principle  of  self-government,  declaring 
it  to  be  'the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery 
into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave 
the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.'  How  vain  and  illusory  would  any  other  principle 
prove  in  practice  in  regard  to  the  Territories,"  etc.  Cincinnati  En 
quirer,  June  22,  1856. 


280  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

of  barbarism,  polygamy  and  slavery."  Even  in  this 
new  party,  availability  dictated  the  choice  of  a  presi 
dential  candidate.  The  real  leaders  of  the  party  were 
passed  over  in  favor  of  John  C.  Fremont,  whose 
romantic  career  was  believed  to  be  worth  many  votes. 
Pitted  against  Buchanan  and  Fremont,  was  Millard 
Fillmore  who  had  been  nominated  months  before  by 
the  American  party,  and  who  subsequently  received 
the  indorsement  of  what  was  left  of  the  moribund 
Whig  party.1 

1  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  pp.  269-274. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  TESTING  OF  POPULAE  SOVEBEIGNTY 

The  author  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  doubtless 
anticipated  a  gradual  and  natural  occupation  of  the 
new  Territories  by  settlers  like  those  home-seekers 
who  had  taken  up  government  lands  in  Iowa  and  other 
States  of  the  Northwest.  In  the  course  of  time,  it 
was  to  be  expected,  such  communities  would  form  their 
own  social  and  political  institutions,  and  so  deter 
mine  whether  they  would  permit  or  forbid  slave-labor. 
By  that  rapid,  and  yet  on  the  whole  strangely  con 
servative,  American  process  the  people  of  the  Terri 
tories  would  become  politically  self-conscious  and 
ready  for  statehood.  Not  all  at  once,  but  gradually, 
a  politically  self-sufficient  entity  would  come  into  being. 
Such  had  been  the  history  of  American  colonization; 
it  seemed  the  part  of  wise  statesmanship  to  follow  the 
trend  of  that  history. 

Theoretically  popular  sovereignty,  as  applied  in  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  was  not  an  advance  over  the 
doctrine  of  Cass  and  Dickinson.  It  professed  to  be  the 
same  which  had  governed  Congress  in  organizing  Utah 
and  New  Mexico.  Nevertheless,  popular  sovereignty 
had  an  artificial  quality  which  squatter  sovereignty 
lacked.  The  relation  between  Congress  and  the  people 
of  the  Territories,  in  the  matter  of  slavery,  was  now  to 
be  determined  not  so  much  by  actual  conditions  as  by 
an  abstract  principle.  Federal  policy  was  indoc 
trinated. 

281 


282  STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS 

There  was,  too,  this  vital  difference  between  squatter 
sovereignty  in  Utah  and  New  Mexico  and  popular 
sovereignty  in  Nebraska  and  Kansas :  the  former  were 
at  least  partially  inhabited  and  enjoyed  some  degree 
of  social  and  political  order;  the  latter  were  practi 
cally  uninhabited.  It  was  one  thing  to  grant  control 
over  all  domestic  concerns  to  a  population  in  esse,  and 
another  and  quite  different  thing  to  grant  control  to 
a  people  in  posse.  In  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  hypo 
thetical  communities  were  endowed  with  the  capacity 
of  self-government,  and  told  to  decide  for  themselves 
a  question  which  would  become  a  burning  issue  the 
very  moment  that  the  first  settlers  set  foot  in  the  Terri 
tories.  Congress  attempted  thus  to  solve  an  equation 
without  a  single  known  quantity. 

Moreover,  slavery  was  no  longer  a  matter  of  local 
concern.  Doubtless  it  was  once  so  regarded;  but  the 
time  had  passed  when  the  conscience  of  the  North 
would  acquiesce  in  a  laissez  faire  policy.  By  force  of 
circumstances  slavery  had  become  a  national  issue. 
Ardent  haters  of  the  institution  were  not  willing  that 
its  extension  or  restriction  should  be  left  to  a  fraction 
of  the  nation,  artificially  organized  as  a  Territory. 
The  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  prejudiced  the  minds  of 
many  against  the  doctrine,  however  sound  in  theory  it 
may  have  seemed,  by  unsettling  what  the  North  re 
garded  as  its  vested  right  in  the  free  territory  north 
of  the  line  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  Act 
made  the  political  atmosphere  electric.  The  conditions 
for  obtaining  a  calm,  dispassionate  judgment  on  the 
domestic  concern  of  chief  interest,  were  altogether 
lacking. 

It  was  everywhere  conceded  that  Nebraska  would 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        283 

be  a  free  Territory.  The  eyes  of  the  nation  were 
focused  upon  Kansas,  which  was  from  the  first  debat 
able  ground.  A  rush  of  settlers  from  the  Northwest 
joined  by  pioneers  from  Kentucky  and  Missouri  fol 
lowed  the  opening  up  of  the  new  lands.  As  Douglas 
had  foretold,  the  tide  of  immigration  held  back  by 
Indian  treaties  now  poured  in.  The  characteristic 
features  of  American  colonization  seemed  about  to  re 
peat  themselves.  So  far  the  movement  of  population 
was  for  the  most  part  spontaneous.  Land-hunger,  not 
the  political  destiny  of  the  West,  drove  men  to  locate 
their  claims  on  the  Kansas  and  the  Missouri.  By  mid 
summer  colonists  of  a  somewhat  different  stripe  ap 
peared.  Sent  out  under  the  auspices  of  the  Emigrant 
Aid  Company,  they  were  to  win  Kansas  for  freedom  at 
the  same  time  that  they  subdued  the  wilderness.  It  was 
a  species  of  assisted  emigration  which  was  new  in  the 
history  of  American  colonization,  outside  the  annals 
of  missionary  effort.  The  chief  promoter  of  this  enter 
prise  was  a  thrifty,  Massachusetts  Yankee,  who  saw 
no  reason  why  crusading  and  business  should  not  go 
hand  in  hand.  Kansas  might  be  wrested  from  the  slave- 
power  at  the  same  time  that  returns  on  invested  funds 
were  secured. 

The  effect  of  these  developments  upon  the  aggres 
sive  pro-slavery  people  of  Missouri  is  not  easy  to  de 
scribe.  Hitherto  they  had  assumed  that  Kansas  would 
become  a  slave  Territory  in  the  natural  order  of  events. 
This  was  the  prevailing  Southern  opinion.  At  once 
the  people  of  western  Missouri  were  put  upon  the  de 
fensive.  Blue  lodges  were  formed  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  slavery  into  Kansas.  Appeals  were  circu 
lated  in  the  slave-holding  States  for  colonists  and 


284  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

funds.  Passions  were  inflamed  by  rumors  which  grew 
as  they  stalked  abroad.  The  peaceful  occupation  of 
Kansas  was  at  an  end.  Popular  sovereignty  was  to 
be  tested  under  abnormal  conditions. 

When  the  election  of  territorial  delegates  to  Con 
gress  occurred,  in  the  late  fall,  a  fatal  defect  in  the  or 
ganic  law  was  disclosed,  to  which  many  of  the  untoward 
incidents  of  succeeding  months  may  be  ascribed.  The 
territorial  act  conferred  the  right  of  voting  at  the  first 
elections  upon  all  free,  white,  male  inhabitants,  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  and  actually  resident  in  the  Terri 
tory.1  Here  was  an  unfortunate  ambiguity.  What  was 
actual  residence?  Every  other  act  organizing  a  terri 
torial  government  was  definite  on  this  point,  permitting 
only  those  to  vote  who  were  living  in  the  proposed 
Territory,  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act.  The 
omission  in  the  case  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  is  easily 
accounted  for.  Neither  had  legal  residents  when  the 
act  was  passed.  Indeed,  this  defect  bears  witness  to 
the  fact  that  Congress  was  legislating,  not  for  actual, 
but  for  hypothetical  communities.  The  consequences 
were  far-reaching,  for  at  the  very  first  election,  it  was 
charged  that  frauds  were  practiced  by  bands  of  Mis- 
sourians,  who  had  crossed  the  border  only  to  aid  the 
pro-slavery  cause.  Not  much  was  made  of  these 
charges,  as  no  particular  interest  attached  to  the  elec 
tion. 

Far  different  was  the  election  of  members  of  the 
territorial  legislature  in  the  following  spring.  On 
all  hands  it  was  agreed  that  this  legislature  would  de 
termine  whether  Kansas  should  be  slave  or  free  soil. 
It  was  regrettable  that  Governor  Eeeder  postponed 

1  Section  23,  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  X,  p.  285. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        285 

the  taking  of  the  census  until  February,  since  by  mid 
winter  many  settlers,  who  had  staked  their  claims,  re 
turned  home  for  the  cold  season,  intending  to  return 
with  their  families  in  the  early  spring.  This  again 
was  a  characteristic  feature  of  frontier  history.1  In 
March,  the  governor  issued  his  proclamation  of  elec 
tion,  giving  only  three  weeks'  notice.  Of  those  who  had 
returned  home,  only  residents  of  Missouri  and  Iowa 
were  able  to  participate  in  the  election  of  March  30th, 
by  hastily  recrossing  into  Kansas.  Governor  Reeder 
did  his  best  to  guard  against  fraud.  In  his  instructions 
to  the  judges  of  election,  he  warned  them  that  a  voter 
must  be  "an  actual  resident";  that  is,  "must  have 
commenced  an  active  inhabitancy,  which  he  actually 
intends  to  continue  permanently,  and  must  have  made 
the  Territory  his  dwelling  place  to  the  exclusion  of 
any  other  home."2  Still,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
bona  fide  residents  could  be  easily  ascertained  in  com 
munities  which  had  sprung  up  like  mushrooms.  A 
hastily  constructed  shack  served  all  the  purposes  of 
the  would-be  voter;  and,  in  last  analysis,  judges  of 
elections  had  to  rest  content  with  declarations  of  in 
tentions.  Those  who  crossed  into  Kansas  after  the 
governor's  proclamation  and  endeavored  to  continue 
actual  inhabitancy,  were  with  difficulty  distinguished 
from  those  who  now  crossed  for  the  first  time,  under  a 
similar  pretext.  As  Douglas  subsequently  contended 
with  much  force,  the  number  of  votes  cast  in  excess  of 
the  census  returns  did  not  in  itself  prove  wholesale 
fraud.3 

1  See  remarks  of  Douglas,  Glol)e,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  360-361. 

3  Howard  Report,  pp.  108-109. 

*  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  360-361. 


286  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

Under  such  liability  to  deception  and  mis  judgment, 
the  territorial  authorities  held  the  election  which  was 
likely  to  determine  the  status  of  Kansas  with  respect 
to  slavery.  Both  parties  were  playing  for  great  stakes ; 
passion  and  violence  were  the  almost  inevitable  out 
come.  Both  parties  contained  desperadoes,  who  in 
variably  come  to  the  surface  in  the  general  mixing 
which  occurs  on  the  frontier.  Both  parties  committed 
frauds  at  the  polls.  But  the  most  serious  gravamina 
have  been  laid  at  the  door  of  those  Blue  Lodges  of  Mis 
souri  which  deliberately  sought  to  secure  the  election  of 
pro-slavery  candidates  by  fair  means  or  foul.  The 
people  of  western  Missouri  had  come  to  believe  that 
the  fate  of  slavery  in  their  own  Commonwealth  hinged 
upon  the  future  of  Kansas.  It  was  commonly  believed 
that  after  Kansas,  Missouri  would  be  abolitionized.  It 
was,  therefore,  with  the  fierce,  unreasoning  energy  of 
defenders  of  their  own  institutions,  that  Blue  Lodges 
organized  their  crusade  for  Kansas.1  On  election  day 
armed  bands  of  Missourians  crossed  into  Kansas  and 
polled  a  heavy  vote  for  the  pro-slavery  candidates,  in 
the  teeth  of  indignant  remonstrances.2 

The  further  history  of  popular  sovereignty  in 
Kansas  must  be  lightly  touched  upon,  for  it  is  the 
reflex  action  in  the  halls  of  Congress  that  interests 
the  student  of  Douglas's  career.  Twenty-eight  of  the 
thirty-nine  members  of  the  first  territorial  legislature 
were  men  of  pronounced  pro-slavery  views ;  eleven  were 
anti-slavery  candidates.  In  seven  districts,  where  pro 
tests  had  been  filed,  the  governor  ordered  new  elections. 
Three  of  those  first  elected  were  returned,  six  were 

1  Spring,  Kansas,  pp.  39-41. 

id.,  pp.  43-49;  Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  81-82. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        287 

new  men  ot  anti-slavery  proclivities.  But  when  the 
legislature  met,  these  new  elections  were  set  aside  and 
the  first  elections  were  declared  valid.1 

In  complete  control  of  the  legislature,  the  pro- 
slavery  party  proceeded  to  write  slavery  into  the 
law  of  the  Territory.  In  their  eagerness  to  establish 
slavery  permanently,  these  legislative  Hotspurs  quite 
overshot  the  mark,  creating  offenses  and  affixing  penal 
ties  of  doubtful  constitutionality.2  Meanwhile  the 
census  of  February  reported  but  one  hundred  ninety-^ 
two  slaves  in  a  total  population  of  eight  thousand  six 
hundred.3  Those  who  had  migrated  from  the  South, 
were  not  as  a  rule  of  the  slave-holding  class.  Those 
who  possessed  slaves  shrank  from  risking  their  prop 
erty  in  Kansas,  until  its  future  were  settled.4  Eventu 
ally,  the  climate  was  to  prove  an  even  greater  obstacle 
to  the  transplantation  of  the  slave-labor  system  into 
Kansas. 

Foiled  in  their  hope  of  winning  the  territorial  legis 
lature,  the  free-State  settlers  in  Kansas  resolved  upon 
a  hazardous  course.  Believing  the  legislature  an  illegal 
body,  they  called  a  convention  to  draft  a  constitution 
with  which  they  proposed  to  apply  for  admission  to 
the  Union  as  a  free  State.  Eobinson,  the  leader  of  the 
free-State  party,  was  wise  in  such  matters  by  reason 
of  his  experience  in  California.  Eeeder,  who  had  been 
displaced  as  governor  and  had  gone  over  to  the  opposi 
tion,  lent  his  aid  to  the  project;  and  ex-Congressman 
Lane,  formerly  of  Indiana,  gave  liberally  of  his  vehe 
ment  energy  to  the  cause.  After  successive  conven- 

1  Spring,  Kansas,  pp.  53-56. 

2Khodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  99. 

•Ibid.,  p.  100.    *  *lUd.,  p.  101. 


288  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

tions  in  which  the  various  free- State  elements  were 
worked  into  a  fairly  consistent  mixture,  the  Topeka 
convention  launched  a  constitution  and  a  free-State 
government.  Unofficially  the  supporters  of  the  new 
government  took  measures  for  its  defense.  In  the  fol 
lowing  spring,  Governor  Eobinson  sent  his  first  mes 
sage  to  the  State  legislature  in  session  at  Topeka ;  and 
Eeeder  and  Lane  were  chosen  senators  for  the  inchoate 
Commonwealth.1 

Meantime  Governor  Shannon  had  succeeded  Eeeder 
as  executive  of  the  territorial  government  at  Shawnee 
Mission.  The  aspect  of  affairs  was  ominous.  Popular 
sovereignty  had  ended  in  a  dangerous  dualism.  Two 
governments  confronted  each  other  in  bitter  hostility. 
There  were  untamed  individuals  in  either  camp,  who 
were  not  averse  to  a  decision  by  wager  of  battle.2 

Such  was  the  situation  in  Kansas,  when  Douglas 
reached  Washington  in  February,  after  a  protracted 
illness.3  The  President  had  already  discussed  the 
Kansas  imbroglio  in  a  special  message ;  but  the  Demo 
cratic  majority  in  the  Senate  showed  some  reluctance 
to  follow  the  lead  of  the  administration.  From  the 
Democrats  in  the  House  not  much  could  be  expected, 
because  of  the  strength  of  the  Eepublicans.  The  party 
awaited  its  leader.  Upon  his  appearance,  all  matters 
relating  to  Kansas  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories.  The  situation  called  for  unusual  qualities 
of  leadership.  How  would  the  author  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act  face  the  palpable  breakdown  of  his 
policy? 

Spring,  Kansas,  Chapter  V;  Rhodes,  II,  pp.  102-103. 
3Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  103. 
'  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  286. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        289 

With  his  customary  dispatch,  Douglas  reported  on 
the  12th  of  March.1  The  majority  report  consumed 
two  hours  in  the  reading ;  Senator  Collamer  stated  the 
position  of  the  minority  in  half  the  time.2  Evidently 
the  chairman  was  aware  where  the  burden  of  proof  lay. 
Douglas  took  substantially  the  same  ground  as  that 
taken  by  the  President  in  his  special  message,  but  he 
discussed  the  issues  boldly  in  his  own  vigorous  way. 
No  one  doubted  that  he  had  reached  his  conclusions 
independently. 

The  report  began  with  a  constitutional  argument  in 
defense  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act.  As  a  contribu 
tion  to  the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  popular 
sovereignty,  the  opening  paragraphs  deserve  more 
than  passing  notice.  The  distinct  advance  in  Douglas's 
thought  consisted  in  this :  that  he  explicitly  refused  to 
derive  the  power  to  organize  Territories  from  that 
provision  of  the  Constitution  which  gave  Congress 
"  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property 
belonging  to  the  United  States."  The  word  "territory" 
here  was  used  in  its  geographical  sense  to  designate  the 
public  domain,  not  to  indicate  a  political  community. 
Eather  was  the  power  to  be  derived  from  the  authority 
of  Congress  to  adopt  necessary  and  proper  means  to 
admit  new  States  into  the  Union.  But  beyond  the 
necessary  and  proper  organization  of  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  with  reference  to  ultimate  statehood,  Congress 
might  not  go.  Clearly,  then,  Congress  might  not  im 
pose  conditions  and  restrictions  upon  a  Territory  which 
would  prevent  its  entering  the  Union  on  an  equality 

1  Senate  Reports,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  No.  34. 

2  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  639. 

19 


290  STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS 

with  the  other  States.  From  the  formation  of  the 
Union,  each  State  had  been  left  free  to  decide  the  ques 
tion  of  slavery  for  itself.  Congress,  therefore,  might 
not  decide  the  question  for  prospective  States.  Becog- 
nizing  this,  the  framers  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act 
had  relegated  the  discussion  of  the  slavery  question  to 
the  people,  who  were  to  form  a  territorial  government 
under  cover  of  the  organic  act.1 

This  was  an  ingenious  argument.  It  was  in  accord 
with  the  utterances  of  some  of  the  weightiest  intellects 
in  our  constitutional  history.  But  it  was  not  in  accord 
with  precedent.  There  was  hardly  a  territorial  act  that 
had  emerged  from  Douglas's  committee  room,  which 
had  not  imposed  restrictions  not  binding  on  the  older 
Commonwealths. 

Having  given  thus  a  constitutional  sanction  to  the 
principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  the  report  un 
hesitatingly  denounced  that  "vast  moneyed  corpora 
tion,"  created  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  do 
mestic  institutions  of  a  distinct  political  community 
fifteen  hundred  miles  away.2  This  was  as  flagrant  an 
act  of  intervention  as  though  France  or  England  had 
interfered  for  a  similar  purpose  in  Cuba,  for  "in 
respect  to  everything  which  affects  its  domestic  policy 
and  internal  concerns,  each  State  stands  in  the  relation 
of  a  foreign  power  to  every  other  State."  The  obvious 
retort  to  this  extraordinary  assertion  was,  that  Kansas 
was  only  a  Territory,  and  not  a  State.  Douglas  then 
made  this  "mammoth  moneyed  corporation"  the  scape 
goat  for  all  that  had  happened  in  Kansas.  The  Mis 
souri  Blue  Lodges  were  defensive  organizations,  called 

1  Senate  Keport,  No.  34,  p.  4. 
9  Ibid.,  p.  7. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        291 

into  existence  by  the  fear  that  the  "abolitionizing"  of 
Kansas  was  the  prelude  to  a  warfare  upon  slavery 
in  Missouri.  The  violence  and  bloodshed  in  Kansas 
were  ' '  the  natural  and  inevitable  consequences  of  such 
extraordinary  systems  of  emigration."1 

Such  ex  post  facto  assertions  did  not  mend  matters 
in  Kansas,  however  much  they  may  have  relieved  the 
author  of  the  report.  It  remained  to  deal  with  the 
existing  situation.  The  report  took  the  ground  that 
the  legislature  of  Kansas  was  a  legal  body  and  had 
been  so  recognized  by  Governor  Eeeder.  Neither  the 
alleged  irregularity  of  the  elections,  nor  other  objec 
tions,  could  diminish  its  legislative  authority.  Pro 
tests  against  the  election  returns  had  been  filed  in  only 
seven  out  of  eighteen  districts.  Ten  out  of  thirteen 
councilmen,  and  seventeen  out  of  twenty- six  represent 
atives,  held  their  seats  by  virtue  of  the  governor's 
certificate.  Even  if  it  were  assumed  that  the  second 
elections  in  the  seven  districts  were  wrongly  invali 
dated  by  the  legislature,  its  action  was  still  the  action 
of  a  lawful  legislature,  possessing  in  either  house  a 
quorum  of  duly  certificated  members.  This  was  a 
lawyer's  plea.  Technically  it  was  unanswerable. 

Having  taken  this  position,  Douglas  very  properly 
refused  to  pass  judgment  on  the  laws  of  the  legislature. 
By  the  very  terms  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  Con 
gress  had  confided  the  power  to  enact  local  laws  to  the 
people  of  the  Territories.  If  the  validity  of  these  laws 
should  be  doubted,  it  was  for  the  courts  of  justice  and 
not  for  Congress  to  decide  the  question.2 

Throughout  the  report,  the  question  was  not  once 

1  Senate  Eeport,  No.  34,  pp.  7-9. 
aIUd.,  p.  23. 


292  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

raised,  whether  the  legislature  really  reflected  the  senti 
ment  of  a  majority  of  the  settlers  of  Kansas.  Douglas 
assumed  that  it  was  truly  representative.  This  atti 
tude  is  not  surprising,  when  one  recalls  his  predilec 
tions  and  the  conflict  of  evidence  on  essential  points  in 
the  controversy.  Nevertheless,  this  attitude  was  unfor 
tunate,  for  it  made  him  unfair  toward  the  free-State 
settlers,  with  whom  by  temper  and  training  he  had  far 
more  in  common  than  with  the  Missouri  emigrants. 
Could  he  have  cut  himself  loose  from  his  bias,  he  would 
have  recognized  the  free-State  men  as  the  really  trust 
worthy  builders  of  a  Commonwealth.  But  having 
taken  his  stand  on  the  legality  of  the  territorial  legis 
lature,  he  persisted  in  regarding  the  free-State  move 
ment  as  a  seditious  combination  to  subvert  the  terri 
torial  government  established  by  Congress.  To  the 
free-State  men  he  would  not  accord  any  inherent, 
sovereign  right  to  annul  the  laws  and  resist  the  au 
thority  of  the  territorial  government.1  The  right  of 
self-government  was  derived  only  from  the  Constitu 
tion  through  the  organic  act  passed  by  Congress.  And 
then  he  used  that  expression  which  was  used  with  tell 
ing  effect  against  the  theory  of  popular  sovereignty: 
"The  sovereignty  of  a  Territory  remains  in  abeyance, 
suspended  in  the  United  States,  in  trust  for  the  people, 
until  they  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a 
State."2  If  this  was  true,  then  popular  sovereignty 
after  all  meant  nothing  more  than  local  self-govern 
ment,  the  measure  of  which  was  to  be  determined  by 
Congress.  If  Congress  left  slavery  to  local  determina 
tion,  it  was  only  for  expediency's  sake,  and  not  by 
reason  of  any  constitutional  obligation. 

1  Senate  Eeport,  No.  34,  p.  34.  a  Ibid.,  p.  39. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        293 

Douglas  found  a  vindication  of  his  Kansas-Nebraska 
Act  in  the  peaceful  history  of  Nebraska,  "to  which  the 
emigrant  aid  societies  did  not  extend  their  operations, 
and  into  which  the  stream  of  emigration  was  permitted 
to  flow  in  its  usual  and  natural  channels. ' 91  He  fixed  the 
ultimate  responsibility  for  the  disorders  in  Kansas 
upon  those  who  opposed  the  principle  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act,  and  who,  "failing  to  accomplish  their 
purpose  in  the  halls  of  Congress,  and  under  the  au 
thority  of  the  Constitution,  immediately  resorted  in 
their  respective  States  to  unusual  and  extraordinary 
means  to  control  the  political  destinies  and  shape  the 
domestic  institutions  of  Kansas,  in  defiance  of  the 
wishes  and  regardless  of  the  rights  of  the  people  of 
that  Territory  as  guaranteed  by  their  organic  law."2 
A  practical  recommendation  accompanied  the  report. 
It  was  proposed  to  authorize  the  territorial  legislature 
to  provide  for  a  constitutional  convention  to  frame 
a  State  constitution,  as  soon  as  a  census  should  indi- 
]  cate  that  there  were  ninety-three  thousand  four  hun- 
:  dred  and  twenty  inhabitants.3    This  bill  was  in  sub- 
!  stantial  accord  with  the  President's  recommendations. 
The  minority  report  was  equally  positive  as  to  the 
!  cause  of  the  trouble  in  Kansas  and  the  proper  remedy. 
I  "Bepeal  the  act  of  1854,  organize  Kansas  anew  as  a 
1  free  Territory  and  all  will  be  put  right."    But  if  Con 
gress  was  bent  on  continuing  the  experiment,  then  the 
!|  Territory  must  be  reorganized  with  proper  safeguards 
against  illegal  voting.     The  only  alternative  was  to 
admit  the  Territory  as  a  State  with  its  free  constitu 
tion. 

'Senate  Report,  No.  34,  p.  40.  *7Z>w2.,  pp.  39-40. 

8  Glole,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  693L 


294  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

The  issue  could  not  have  been  more  sharply  drawn. 
Popular  sovereignty  as  applied  in  the  Kansas-Neb 
raska  Act  was  put  upon  the  defensive.  Eepublican 
senators  made  haste  to  press  their  advantage.  Sum- 
ner  declared  that  the  true  issue  was  smothered  in  the 
majority  report,  but  stood  forth  as  a  pillar  of  fire  in 
the  report  of  the  minority.  Trumbull  forced  the  at 
tack,  while  Douglas  was  absent,  without  waiting  for 
the  printing  of  the  reports.  It  needed  only  this  ap 
parent  discourtesy  to  bring  Douglas  into  the  arena. 
An  unseemly  wrangle  between  the  Illinois  senators 
followed,  in  the  course  of  which  Douglas  challenged 
his  colleague  to  resign  and  stand  with  him  for  re-elec 
tion  before  the  next  session  of  the  legislature.1  Trum 
bull  wisely  declined  to  accept  the  risk. 

On  the  20th  of  March,  Douglas  addressed  the  Senate 
in  reply  to  Trumbull.2  Nothing  that  he  said  shed  any 
new  light  on  the,  controversy.  He  had  not  changed  his 
angle  of  vision.  He  had  only  the  old  arguments  with 
which  to  combat  the  assertion  that  "Kansas  had  been 
conquered  and  a  legislature  imposed  by  violence. " 
But  the  speech  differed  from  the  report,  just  as  living 
speech  must  differ  from  the  printed  page.  Every  as 
sertion  was  pointed  by  his  vigorous  intonations ;  every 
argument  was  accentuated  by  his  forceful  personality. 
The  report  was  a  lawyer's  brief;  the  speech  was  the 
flexible  utterance  of  an  accomplished  debater,  bent 
upon  a  personal  as  well  as  an  argumentative  victory. 

Even  hostile  critics  were  forced  to  yield  to  a  certain 
admiration  for  "the  Little  Giant."  The  author  of 
Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  watched  him  from  her  seat  in  the 

1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  657. 
9  Ibid.,  App.,  pp.  280  ff. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        295 

Senate  gallery,  with  intense  interest ;  and  though  writ 
ing  for  readers,  who  like  herself  hated  the  man  for 
his  supposed  servility  to  the  South,  she  said  with  un 
wonted  objectivity,  "This  Douglas  is  the  very  ideal 
of  vitality.  Short,  broad,  and  thick- set,  every  inch  of 
him  has  its  own  alertness  and  motion.  He  has  a  good 
head  and  face,  thick  black  hair,  heavy  black  brows  and 
a  keen  eye.  His  figure  would  be  an  unfortunate  one 
were  it  not  for  the  animation  which  constantly  per 
vades  it;  as  it  is,  it  rather  gives  poignancy  to  his 
peculiar  appearance;  he  has  a  small,  handsome  hand, 
moreover,  and  a  graceful  as  well  as  forcible  mode  of 
using  it He  has  two  requisites  of  a  debater — a  me 
lodious  voice  and  a  clear,  sharply  defined  enunciation. 
....  His  forte  in  debating  is  his  power  of  mystifying 
the  point.  With  the  most  off-hand  assured  airs  in  the 
world,  and  a  certain  appearance  of  honest  superiority, 
like  one  who  has  a  regard  for  you  and  wishes  to  set 
you  right  on  one  or  two  little  matters,  he  proceeds  to 
set  up  some  point  which  is  not  that  in  question,  but 
only  a  family  connection  of  it,  and  this  point  he  attacks 
with  the  very  best  of  logic  and  language ;  he  charges 
upon  it  horse  and  foot,  runs  it  down,  tramples  it  in 
the  dust,  and  then  turns  upon  you  with — 'Sir,  there  is 
your  argument!  Did  not  I  tell  you  so?  You  see  it  is 
all  stuff;'  and  if  you  have  allowed  yourself  to  be  so 
dazzled  by  his  quickness  as  to  forget  that  the  routed 
point  is  not,  after  all,  the  one  in  question,  you  suppose 
all  is  over  with  it.  Moreover,  he  contrives  to  mingle 
up  so  many  stinging  allusions  to  so  many  piquant  per 
sonalities  that  by  the  time  he  has  done  his  mystifica 
tion  a  dozen  others  are  ready  and  burning  to  spring 


296  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

on  their  feet  to  repel  some  direct  or  indirect  attack, 
all  equally  wide  of  the  point."1 

Douglas  paid  dearly  for  some  of  these  personal  shots. 
He  had  never  forgiven  Sumner  for  his  share  in  "the 
Appeal  of  the  Independent  Democrats."  He  lost  no 
opportunity  to  attribute  unworthy  motives  to  this  man, 
whose  radical  views  on  slavery  he  never  could  com 
prehend.  More  than  once  he  insinuated  that  the  Sen 
ator  from  Massachusetts  and  other  Black  Eepublicans 
were  fabricating  testimony  relating  to  Kansas  for  poli 
tical  purposes.  When  Sumner,  many  weeks  later,  rose 
to  address  the  Senate  on  "the  Crime  against  Kansas, " 
he  labored  under  the  double  weight  of  personal  wrongs 
and  the  wrongs  of  a  people.  The  veteran  Cass  pro 
nounced  his  speech  "the  most  un-American  and  un 
patriotic  that  ever  grated  on  the  ears  of  the  members  of 
this  high  body."2  Even  Sumner 's  friends  listened  to 
him  with  surprise  and  regret.  Of  Douglas  he  had  this 
to  say: 

"As  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  is  the  Don 
Quixote,  the  Senator  from  Illinois  is  the  squire  of 
slavery,  its  very  Sancho  Panza,  ready  to  do  all  its  hu 
miliating  offices.  This  Senator  in  his  labored  address, 
vindicating  his  labored  report — piling  one  mass  of 
elaborate  error  upon  another  mass — constrained  him 
self,  as  you  will  remember,  to  unfamiliar  decencies  of 
speech.  ...  I  will  not  stop  to  repel  the  imputations 
which  he  cast  upon  myself.  ,  .  .  Standing  on  this  floor, 
the  Senator  issued  his  rescript,  requiring  submission 
to  the  Usurped  Power  of  Kansas ;  and  this  was  accom 
panied  by  a  manner — all  his  own — such  as  befits  the 

'New  York  Independent,  May  1,  1856;  quoted  by  Rhodes  II,  p.  128. 
*  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.  p.  544. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        297 

tyrannical  threat.  .  .  .  He  is  bold.  He  shrinks  from 
nothing.  Like  Danton,  he  may  cry,  'I'audace!  I'audace! 
tou jours  I'audace!'  but  even  his  audacity  cannot  com 
pass  this  work.  The  Senator  copies  the  British  officer, 
who,  with  boastful  swagger,  said  that  with  the  hilt  of 
his  sword  he  would  cram  the  '  stamps'  down  the  throats 
of  the  American  people,  and  he  will  meet  a  similar 
failure."1 

The  retort  of  Douglas  was  not  calculated  to  turn 
away  wrath.  He  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  these 
gross  insults  were  not  uttered  in  the  heat  of  indigna 
tion,  but  "  conned  over,  written  with  cool,  deliberate 
malignity,  repeated  from  night  to  night  in  order  to 
catch  the  appropriate  grace/'  He  ridiculed  the  ex 
cessive  self-esteem  of  Sunnier  in  words  that  moved 
the  Senate  to  laughter ;  and  then  completed  his  vindic 
tive  assault  by  charging  Sumner  with  perfidy.  Had 
he  not  sworn  to  obey  the  Constitution,  and  then,  for 
sooth,  refused  to  support  the  enforcement  of  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  law?2 

Sumner  replied  in  a  passion,  "Let  the  Senator  re 
member  hereafter  that  the  bowie-knife  and  bludgeon 
are  not  the  proper  emblems  of  senatorial  debate.  Let 
him  remember  that  the  swagger  of  Bob  Acres  and  the 
ferocity  of  the  Malay  cannot  add  dignity  to  this  body. 
.  .  .No  person  with  the  upright  form  of  a  man  can  be 
allowed,  without  violation  of  all  decency,  to  switch  out 
from  his  tongue  the  perpetual  stench  of  offensive  per 
sonality.  Sir,  that  is  not  a  proper  weapon  of  debate, 
at  least,  on  this  floor.  The  noisome,  squat,  and  name 
less  animal,  to  which  I  refer,  is  not  a  proper  model  for 
an  American  Senator.  Will  the  Senator  from  Illinois 

1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  531.  2  lUd.,  p.  545. 


298  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

take  notice f"  And  upon  Douglas's  unworthy  retort 
that  he  certainly  would  not  imitate  the  Senator  in  that 
capacity,  Sumner  said  insultingly,  "Mr.  President, 
again  the  Senator  has  switched  his  tongue,  and  again 
he  fills  the  Senate  with  its  offensive  odor. ' n 

Two  days  later  Brooks  made  his  assault  on  Sumner 
in  the  Senate  chamber.  Sumner 's  recollection  was, 
that  on  recovering  consciousness,  he  recognized  among 
those  about  him,  but  offering  no  assistance,  Senators 
Douglas  and  Toombs,  and  between  them,  his  assailant.2 
It  was  easy  for  ill-disposed  persons  to  draw  unfortu 
nate  inferences  from  this  sick-bed  testimony.  Douglas 
felt  that  an  explanation  was  expected  from  him.  In  a 
frank,  explicit  statement  he  told  his  colleagues  that  he 
was  in  the  reception  room  of  the  Senate  when  the  as 
sault  occurred.  Hearing  what  was  happening,  he  rose 
immediately  to  his  feet  to  enter  the  chamber  and  put  an 
end  to  the  affray.  But,  on  second  thought,  he  realized 
that  his  motives  would  be  misconstrued  if  he  entered 
the  hall.  When  the  affair  was  over,  he  went  in  with 
the  crowd.  He  was  not  near  Brooks  at  any  time,  and 
he  was  not  with  Senator  Toombs,  except  perhaps  as  he 
passed  him  on  leaving  the  chamber.  He  did  not  know 
that  any  attack  upon  Mr.  Sumner  was  purposed  "then 
or  at  any  other  time,  here  or  at  any  other  place. '  '3  Still, 
it  is  to  be  regretted  that  Douglas  did  not  act  on  his 
first,  manly  instincts  and  do  all  that  lay  in  his  power  to 
end  this  brutal  assault,  regardless  of  possible  miscon 
structions. 

Disgraceful  as  these  scenes  in  Congress  were,  they 

1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  547. 
2Khodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  148. 
•  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1305. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        299 

were  less  ominous  than  events  which  were  passing  in 
Kansas.  Clashes  between  pro-slavery  and  free-State 
settlers  had  all  but  resulted  in  civil  war  in  the  preced 
ing  fall.  An  unusually  severe  winter  had  followed, 
which  not  only  cooled  the  passions  of  all  for  a  while, 
but  convinced  many  a  slave-holder  of  the  futility  of 
introducing  African  slaves  into  a  climate,  where  on 
occasion  the  mercury  would  freeze  in  the  thermometer. 
In  the  spring  hostilities  were  resumed.  Under  cover 
of  executing  certain  writs  in  Lawrence,  Sheriff  Jones 
and  a  posse  of  ruffians  took  revenge  upon  that  strong 
hold  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Society,  by  destroying  the 
newspaper  offices,  burning  some  public  buildings,  and 
pillaging  the  town.  Three  days  after  the  sack  of 
Lawrence,  and  just  two  days  after  the  assault  upon 
Sumner  in  the  Senate,  John  Brown  and  his  sons  ex 
ecuted  the  decree  of  Almighty  God,  by  slaying  in  cold 
blood  five  pro- slavery  settlers  on  the  Pottawatomie. 
Civil  war  had  begun  in  Kansas.1 

If  remedial  measures  for  Kansas  were  needed  at  the 
beginning  of  Congress,  much  more  were  they  needed 
now.  The  bill  reported  by  Douglas  for  the  eventual 
admission  of  Kansas  had  commended  itself  neither  to 
the  leaders,  nor  to  the  rank  and  file,  of  the  party.  There 
was  a  general  disposition  to  await  the  outcome  of  the 
national  party  conventions,  before  legislating  for 
Kansas.  Douglas  made  repeated  efforts  to  expedite 
his  bill,  but  his  failure  to  secure  the  Democratic  nomi 
nation  seemed  to  weaken  his  leadership.  Pressure 
from  without  finally  spurred  the  Democratic  members 
of  Congress  to  action.  The  enthusiasm  of  the  Eepub- 
licans  in  convention  and  their  confident  expectation  of 

Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  103-106;  154-166. 


300  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

carrying  many  States  at  the  North,  warned  the  Demo 
crats  that  they  must  make  some  effort  to  allay  the  dis 
turbances  in  Kansas.  The  initiative  was  taken  by 
Senator  Toombs,  who  drafted  a  bill  conceding  far  more 
to  Northern  sentiment  than  any  yet  proposed.  It  pro 
vided  that,  after  a  census  had  been  taken,  delegates  to  a 
constitutional  convention  should  be  chosen  on  the  date 
of  the  presidential  election  in  November.  Five  compe 
tent  persons,  appointed  by  the  President  with  the  con 
sent  of  the  Senate,  were  to  supervise  the  census  and  the 
subsequent  registration  of  voters.  The  convention  thus 
chosen  was  to  assemble  in  December  to  frame  a  State 
constitution  and  government.1 

The  Toombs  bill,  with  several  others,  and  with  nu 
merous  amendments,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories.  Frequent  conferences  followed  at  Doug 
las's  residence,  in  which  the  recognized  leaders  of  the 
party  participated.2  It  was  decided  to  support  the 
Toombs  bill  in  a  slightly  amended  form  and  to  make  a 
party  measure  of  it.3  Prudence  warned  against  at 
tempting  to  elect  Buchanan  on  a  policy  of  merely  nega 
tive  resistance  to  the  Topeka  movement.4  The  Repub 
lican  members  of  Congress  were  to  be  forced  to  make  a 
show  of  hands  on  a  measure  which  promised  sub 
stantial  relief  to  the  people  of  Kansas. 

In  his  report  of  June  30th,  Douglas  discussed  the 
various  measures  that  had  been  proposed  by  Whigs 
and  Eepublicans,  but  found  the  Toombs  bill  best 
adapted  to  "  insure  a  fair  and  impartial  decision  of  the 
questions  at  issue  in  Kansas,  in  accordance  with  the 

1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1439. 
*Ibid.,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  22. 
•Ibid.,  p.  119. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  119. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        301 

wishes  of  the  lona  fide  inhabitants. ' '  A  single  para 
graph  from  this  report  ought  to  have  convinced  those 
who  subsequently  doubted  the  sincerity  of  Douglas's 
course,  that  he  was  partner  to  no  plots  against  the  free 
expression  of  public  opinion  in  the  Territory.  "In  the 
opinion  of  your  committee,  whenever  a  constitution 
shall  be  formed  in  any  Territory,  preparatory  to  its 
admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  justice,  the  genius 
of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory  of  our  republican 
system  imperatively  demand  that  the  voice  of  the 
people  shall  be  fairly  expressed,  and  their  will  em 
bodied  in  that  fundamental  law,  without  fraud  or 
violence,  or  intimidation,  or  any  other  improper  or  un 
lawful  influence,  and  subject  to  no  other  restrictions 
than  those  imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  'n 

The  Toombs  bill  caused  Eepublicans  grave  misgiv 
ings,  even  while  they  conceded  its  ostensible  liberality. 
Could  an  administration  that  had  condoned  the  frauds 
already  practiced  in  Kansas  be  trusted  to  appoint  dis 
interested  commissioners?  Would  a  census  of  the 
present  population  give  a  majority  in  the  proposed 
convention  to  the  free-State  party  in  Kansas?  Every 
one  knew  that  many  free-State  people  had  been  driven 
away  by  the  disorders.  Douglas  endeavored  to  re 
assure  his  opponents  on  these  points;  but  his  words 
carried  no  weight  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber. 
No  better  evidence  of  his  good  faith  in  the  matter, 
however,  could  have  been  asked  than  he  offered,  by  an 
amendment  which  extended  the  right  of  voting  at  the 
elections  to  all  who  had  been  bona  fide  residents  and 
voters,  but  who  had  absented  themselves  from  the  Ter- 

1  Senate  Keport,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  No.  198. 


302  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

ritory,  provided  they  should  return  before  October  1st.1 
If,  as  Eepublicans  asserted,  many  more  free-State 
settlers  than  pro-slavery  squatters  had  been  driven 
out,  then  here  was  a  fair  concession.  But  what  they 
wanted  was  not  merely  an  equal  chance  for  freedom  in 
Kansas,  but  precedence.  To  this  end  they  were  ready 
even  to  admit  Kansas  under  the  Topeka  constitution, 
which,  by  the  most  favorable  construction,  was  the  work 
of  a  faction.2 

It  was  afterwards  alleged  that  Douglas  had  wittingly 
suppressed  a  clause  in  the  original  Toombs  bill,  which 
provided  for  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  a 
popular  vote.  The  circumstances  were  such  as  to  make 
the  charge  plausible,  and  Douglas,  in  his  endeavor  to 
clear  himself,  made  hasty  and  unqualified  statements 
which  were  manifestly  incorrect.  In  his  own  bill  for 
the  admission  of  Kansas,  Douglas  referred  explicitly 
to  ' '  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. ' >s 
The  wording  of  the  clause  indicates  that  he  regarded 
the  popular  ratification  of  the  constitution  to  be  a 
matter  of  course.  The  original  Toombs  bill  had  also 
referred  explicitly  to  a  ratification  of  the  constitution 
by  the  people  ;4  but  when  it  was  reported  from  Doug 
las  's  committee  in  an  amended  form,  it  had  been 
stripped  of  this  provision.  Trumbull  noted  at  the 
time  that  this  amended  bill  made  no  provision  for  the 
submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  vote  of  the  people 
and  deplored  the  omission,  though  he  supposed,  as  did 
most  men,  that  such  a  ratification  would  be  necessary.5 

1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  795. 

2Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  194-195. 

8  Senate  Bill,  No.  172,  Section  3.     *  Senate  Bill,  No.  356,  Section  13. 

•  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  779. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        303 

Subsequently  he  accused  Douglas  not  only  of  having 
intentionally  omitted  the  referendum  clause,  but  of 
having  prevented  a  popular  vote,  by  adding  the  clause, 
' '  and  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  Act,  no  other 
election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory."1 

Douglas  cleared  himself  from  the  latter  charge,  by 
pointing  out  that  this  clause  had  been  struck  out  upon 
his  own  motion,  and  replaced  by  the  clause  which  read, 
"all  other  elections  in  said  Territory  are  hereby  post 
poned  until  such  time  as  said  convention  shall  ap 
point.  "2  As  to  the  other  charge,  Douglas  said  in  1857, 
that  he  knew  the  Toombs  bill  was  silent  on  the  matter 
of  submission,  but  he  took  the  fair  construction  to  be 
that  powers  not  delegated  were  reserved,  and  that  of 
course  the  constitution  would  be  submitted  to  the  peo 
ple.  t '  That  I  was  a  party,  either  by  private  conferences 
at  my  house  or  otherwise,  to  a  plan  to  force  a  constitu 
tion  on  the  people  of  Kansas  without  submission,  is 
not  true. ?  '3 

Still,  there  was  the  ugly  fact  that  the  Toombs  bill 
had  gone  to  his  committee  with  the  clause,  and  had 
emerged  shorn  of  it.  Toombs  himself  threw  some 
light  on  the  matter  by  stating  that  the  clause  had 
been  stricken  out  because  there  was  no  provision  for  a 
second  election,  and  therefore  no  proper  safeguards 
for  such  a  popular  vote.4  The  probability  is  that 
Douglas,  and  in  fact  most  men,  deemed  it  sufficient  at 
that  time  to  provide  a  fair  opportunity  for  the  elec- 

1  Speech  at  Alton,  Illinois,  1858. 

2  Political  Debates  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas,  pp.  161  ff. 
8  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  22. 

4  Ibid.,  App.,  p.  127.  Toombs  also  stated  that  the  submission  clause 
had  been  put  in  his  bill  in  the  first  place  by  accident,  and  that  it  had 
been  stricken  from  the  bill  at  his  suggestion. 


304  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

tion  of  a  convention.1  When  Trumbull  preferred  his 
charges  in  detail  in  the  campaign  of  1858,  Douglas  at 
first  flatly  denied  that  there  was  a  submission  clause 
in  the  original  Toombs  bill.  Both  Trumbull  and 
Lincoln  then  convicted  Douglas  of  error,  and  thus  put 
him  in  the  light  of  one  who  had  committed  an  offense 
and  had  sought  to  save  himself  by  prevaricating. 

The  Toombs  bill  passed  the  Senate  over  the  impo 
tent  Republican  opposition;  but  in  the  House  it  en 
countered  a  hostile  majority  which  would  not  so  much 
as  consider  a  proposition  emanating  from  Democratic 
sources.2  Douglas  charged  the  Eepublicans  with  the 
deliberate  wish  and  intent  to  keep  the  Kansas  issue 
alive.  "All  these  gentlemen  want,"  he  declared,  "is 
to  get  up  murder  and  bloodshed  in  Kansas  for  political 
effect.  They  do  not  mean  that  there  shall  be  peace  until 
after  the  presidential  election.  .  .  .  Their  capital  for*- 
the  presidential  election  is  blood.  We  may  as  well  talk 
plainly.  An  angel  from  Heaven  could  not  write  a  bill 
to  restore  peace  in  Kansas  that  would  be  acceptable 
to  the  Abolition  Eepublican  party  previous  to  the 
presidential  election.  "3 

"Bleeding  Kansas"  was,  indeed,  a  most  effective 
campaign  cry.  Before  Congress  adjourned,  the  Ee 
publicans  had  found  other  campaign  material  in  the 
majority  report  of  the  Kansas  investigating  committee. 
The  Democrats  issued  the  minority  report  as  a  counter 
blast,  and  also  circulated  three  hundred  thousand 
copies  of  Douglas's  12th  of  March  report,  which  was 

1  The  submission  of  State  constitutions  to  a  popular  vote  had  not 
then  become  a  general  practice. 

2  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  195. 
1  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  844. 


TESTING  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY        305 

held  to  be  campaign  material  of  the  first  order.  Doug 
las  himself  paid  for  one-third  of  these  out  of  his  own 
pocket.1  No  one  could  accuse  him  of  sulking  in  his 
tent.  Whatever  personal  pique  he  may  have  felt  at 
losing  the  nomination,  he  was  thoroughly  loyal  to  his 
party.  He  gave  unsparingly  of  his  time  and  strength 
to  the  cause  of  Democracy,  speaking  most  effectively 
in  the  doubtful  States.  And  when  Pennsylvania  be 
came  the  pivotal  State,  as  election  day  drew  near, 
Douglas  gave  liberally  to  the  campaign  fund  which  his 
friend  Forney  was  collecting  to  carry  the  State  for 
Buchanan.2 

Illinois,  too,  was  now  reckoned  as  a  doubtful  State. 
Douglas  had  forced  the  issues  clearly  to  the  fore  by 
pressing  the  nomination  of  Eichardson  for  governor.3 
Next  to  himself,  there  was  no  man  in  the  State  so 
closely  identified  with  Kansas-Nebraska  legislation. 
The  anti-Nebraska  forces  accepted  the  gage  of  battle 
by  nominating  Bissell,  a  conspicuous  figure  among 
those  Democrats  who  could  not  sanction  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  Only  the  nomination  of  a 
Know-Nothing  candidate  complicated  the  issues  which 
were  thus  drawn.  Shortly  before  the  October  State 
elections,  Douglas  saw  that  he  had  committed  a  tactical 
blunder.  Eichardson  was  doomed  to  defeat.  "  Would 
it  not  be  well,"  wrote  Douglas  to  James  W.  Sheahan, 
who  had  come  from  Washington  to  edit  the  Chicago 
Times,  "to  prepare  the  minds  of  your  readers  for 
losing  the  State  elections  on  the  14th  of  October? 
Buchanan's  friends  expect  to  lose  it  then,  but  carry 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  21. 

2  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  443. 

'Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  650. 
20 


306  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

the  State  by  20,000  in  November.  We  may  have  to 
fight  against  wind  and  tide  after  the  14th.  Hence  oar 
friends  ought  to  be  prepared  for  the  worst.  We  must 
carry  Illinois  at  all  hazards  and  in  any  event.''1 

This  forecast  proved  to  be  correct.  Bichardson,  with 
all  that  he  represented,  went  down  to  defeat.  In 
November  Buchanan  carried  the  State  by  a  narrow 
margin,  the  total  Democratic  vote  falling  far  behind 
the  combined  vote  for  Fremont  and  Fillmore.2  The 
political  complexion  of  Illinois  had  changed.  It  be 
hooved  the  senior  senator  to  take  notice. 

1MS.  Letter,  Douglas  to  Sheahan,  October  6,  1856. 

2  Tribune  Almanac,  1857.    The  vote  was  as  follows: 

Buchanan     105,348 

Fremont    96,189 

Fillmore    37,444 


BOOK  m 

THE  IMPENDING  CRISIS 


CHAPTEE  XIV 

THE  PEKSONAL  EQUATION 

Vast  changes  had  passed  over  Illinois  since  Douglas 
set  foot  on  its  soil,  a  penniless  boy  with  his  fortune  to 
make.  The  frontier  had  been  pushed  back  far  beyond 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  State;  the  Indians  had 
disappeared;  and  the  great  military  tract  had  been 
occupied  by  a  thrifty,  enterprising  people  of  the  same 
stock  from  which  Douglas  sprang.  In  1833,  the  center 
of  political  gravity  lay  far  south  of  the  geographical 
center  of  the  State;  by  1856,  the  northern  counties 
had  already  established  a  political  equipoise.  The 
great  city  on  Lake  Michigan,  a  lusty  young  giant,  was 
yearly  becoming  more  conscious  of  its  commercial  and 
political  possibilities.  Douglas  had  natural  affinities 
with  Chicago.  It  was  thoroughly  American,  thoroughly 
typical  of  that  restless,  aggressive  spirit  which  had 
sent  him,  and  many  another  New  Englander,  into  the 
great  interior  basin  of  the  continent.  There  was  no 
other  city  which  appealed  so  strongly  to  his  native 
instincts.  From  the  first  he  had  been  impressed  by  its 
commercial  potentialities.  He  had  staked  his  own  for 
tunes  upon  its  invincible  prosperity  by  investing  in 
real  estate,  and  within  a  few  years  he  had  reaped  the 
reward  of  his  faith  in  unseen  values.  His  holdings 
both  in  the  city  and  in  Cook  County  advanced  in  value 
by  leaps  and  bounds,  so  that  in  the  year  1856,  he  sold 
approximately  one  hundred  acres  for  $90,000.  With 
his  wonted  prodigality,  born  of  superb  confidence  in 

309 


310  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

future  gains,  he  also  deeded  ten  acres  of  his  valuable 
" Grove  Property"  to  the  trustees  of  Chicago  Univer 
sity.1  Yet  with  a  far  keener  sense  of  honor  than  many 
of  his  contemporaries  exhibited,  he  refused  to  specu 
late  in  land  in  the  new  States  and  Territories,  with 
whose  political  beginnings  he  would  be  associated  as 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories.  He  was 
resolved  early  in  his  career  "to  avoid  public  suspicion 
of  private  interest  in  his  political  conduct."2 

The  gift  to  Chicago  University  was  no  doubt  inspired 
in  part  at  least  by  local  pride ;  yet  it  was  not  the  first 
nor  the  only  instance  of  the  donor's  interest  in  educa 
tional  matters.  No  one  had  taken  greater  interest  in 
the  bequest  of  James  Smithson  to  the  United  States. 
At  first,  no  doubt,  Douglas  labored  under  a  common 
misapprehension  regarding  this  foundation,  fancying 
that  it  would  contribute  directly  to  the  advancement 
and  diffusion  of  the  applied  sciences ;  but  his  support 
was  not  less  hearty  when  he  grasped  the  policy  formu 
lated  by  the  first  secretary  of  the  institution.  He  was 
the  author  of  that  provision  in  the  act  establishing  the 
Smithsonian  Institution,  which  called  for  the  pre 
sentation  of  one  copy  of  every  copyrighted  book,  map, 
and  musical  composition,  to  the  Institution  and  to  the 
Congressional  Library.3  He  became  a  member  of  the 
board  of  regents  and  retained  the  office  until  his  death. 

With  his  New  England  training  Douglas  believed 
profoundly  in  the  dignity  of  labor ;  not  even  his  South 
ern  associations  lessened  his  genuine  admiration  for 

1Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  442-443;  Iglehart,  History  of  the  Douglas 
Estate  in  Chicago. 

2  Letter  in  Chicago  Times,  August  30,  1857. 
'  Globe,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  749-750. 


THE  PERSONAL  EQUATION  311 

the  magnificent  industrial  achievements  of  the  North 
ern  mechanic  and  craftsman.  He  shared,  too,  the  con 
viction  of  his  Northern  constituents,  that  the  inventive 
ness,  resourcefulness,  and  bold  initiative  of  the  Ameri 
can  workman  was  the  outcome  of  free  institutions, 
which  permitted  and  encouraged  free  and  bold  think 
ing.  The  American  laborer  was  not  brought  up  to 
believe  it  "a  crime  to  think  in  opposition  to  the  conse 
crated  errors  of  olden  times."1  It  was  impossible 
for  a  man  so  thinking  to  look  with  favor  upon  the  slave- 
labor  system  of  the  South.  He  might  tolerate  the 
presence  of  slavery  in  the  South;  but  in  his  heart  of 
hearts  he  could  not  desire  its  indefinite  extension. 

Douglas  belonged  to  his  section,  too,  in  his  attitude 
toward  the  disposition  of  the  public  domain.  He  was 
one  of  the  first  to  advocate  free  grants  of  the  public 
lands  to  homesteaders.  His  bill  to  grant  one  hundred 
and  sixty  acres  to  actual  settlers  who  should  cultivate 
them  for  four  years,  was  the  first  of  many  similar  pro 
jects  in  the  early  fifties.2  Southern  statesmen  thought 
this  the  best  "bid"  yet  made  for  votes :  it  was  further 
evidence  of  Northern  demagogism.  The  South,  in 
deed,  had  little  direct  interest  in  the  peopling  of  the 
Western  prairies  by  independent  yeomen,  native  or 
foreign.  Just  here  Douglas  parted  company  with  his 
Southern  associates.  He  believed  that  the  future  of 
the  great  West  depended  upon  this  wise  and  beneficial 
use  of  the  national  domain.  Neither  could  he  agree 
with  Eastern  statesmen  who  deplored  the  gratuitous 
distribution  of  lands,  which  by  sale  would  yield  large 
revenues.  His  often-repeated  reply  was  the  quintes- 

1  Globe,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  870. 

2  Ibid.,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  75. 


312  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

sence  of  Western  statesmanship.  The  pioneer  who 
went  into  the  wilderness,  to  wrestle  with  all  manner 
of  hardships,  was  a  true  wealth-producer.  As  he 
cleared  his  land  and  tilled  the  soil,  he  not  only  himself 
became  a  tax-payer,  but  he  increased  the  value  of  ad 
joining  lands  and  added  to  the  sum  total  of  the  national 
resources.1 

Douglas  gave  his  ungrudging  support  to  grants  of 
land  in  aid  of  railroads  and  canals.  He  would  not  re 
gard  such  grants,  however,  as  mere  donations,  but 
rather  as  wise  provisions  for  increasing  the  value  of 
government  lands.  "The  government  of  the  United 
States  is  a  great  land  owner;  she  has  vast  bodies  of 
land  which  she  has  had  in  market  for  thirty  or  forty 
years ;  and  experience  proves  that  she  cannot  sell  them. 
.  .  .  The  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  sale  does  not  arise 
from  the  fact  that  the  lands  are  not  fertile  and  suscep 
tible  to  cultivation,  but  that  they  are  distant  from 
market,  and  in  many  cases  destitute  of  timber."2 
Therefore  he  gave  his  voice  and  vote  for  nearly  all 
land  grant  bills,  designed  to  aid  the  construction  of 
railroads  and  canals  that  would  bring  these  public 
lands  into  the  market;  but  he  insisted  that  everything 
should  be  done  by  individual  enterprise  if  possible. 
He  shared  the  hostility  of  the  West  toward  large  grants 
of  land  to  private  corporations.3  What  could  not  be 
done  by  individual  enterprise,  should  be  done  by  the 
States;  and  only  that  should  be  undertaken  by  the 
Federal  government  which  could  be  done  in  no  other 
way. 

As  the  representative  of  a  constituency  which  was 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  266. 

2 Ibid.,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  350-351.  'Ibid.,  p.  769. 


THE  PERSONAL  EQUATION  313 

profoundly  interested  in  the  navigation  of  the  great 
interior  waterways  of  the  continent,  Douglas  was  a 
vigorous  advocate  of  internal  improvements,  so  far  as 
his  Democratic  conscience  would  allow  him  to  construe 
the  Constitution  in  favor  of  such  undertakings  by  the 
Federal  government.  Like  his  constituents,  he  was 
not  always  logical  in  his  deductions  from  constitu 
tional  provisions.  The  Constitution,  he  believed,  would 
not  permit  an  appropriation  of  government  money 
for  the  construction  of  the  ship  canal  around  the  Falls 
of  the  St.  Mary's;  but  as  landowner,  the  Federal  gov 
ernment  might  donate  lands  for  that  purpose.1  He 
was  also  constrained  to  vote  for  appropriations  for  the 
improvement  of  river  channels  and  of  harbors  on  the 
.lakes  and  on  the  ocean,  because  these  were  works  of  a 
distinctly  national  character ;  but  he  deplored  the  mode 
by  which  these  appropriations  were  made.2 

Just  when  the  Nebraska  issue  came  to  the  fore,  he 
was  maturing  a  scheme  by  which  a  fair,  consistent,  and 
continuous  policy  of  internal  improvements  could  be 
initiated,  in  place  of  the  political  bargaining  which 
had  hitherto  determined  the  location  of  government 
operations.  Two  days  before  he  presented  his  famous 
Nebraska  report,  Douglas  addressed  a  letter  to  Gov 
ernor  Matteson  of  Illinois  in  which  he  developed  this 
new  policy.3  He  believed  that  the  whole  question 
would  be  thoroughly  aired  in  the  session  just  begun.* 
Instead  of  making  internal  improvements  a  matter  of 
politics,  and  of  wasteful  jobbery,  he  would  take  advan- 

*  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  951. 
*llid.,  p.  952. 

8  Letter  to  Governor  Matteson,  January  2,  1854,  in  Sheahan,  Douglas, 
pp.  358  ff. 

*MS.  Letter,  Douglas  to  C.  H.  Lanphier,  November  11,  1853. 


314  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

tage  of  the  constitutional  provision  which  permits  a 
State  to  lay  tonnage  duties  by  the  consent  of  Congress. 
If  Congress  would  pass  a  law  permitting  the  imposi 
tion  of  tonnage  duties  according  to  a  uniform  rule, 
then  each  town  and  city  might  be  authorized  to  under 
take  the  improvement  of  its  own  harbor,  and  to  tax  its 
own  commerce  for  the  prosecution  of  the  work.  Under 
such  a  system  the  dangers  of  misuse  and  improper 
diversion  of  funds  would  be  reduced  to  a  minimum. 
The  system  would  be  self -regulative.  Negligence,  or 
extravagance,  with  the  necessary  imposition  of  higher 
duties,  would  punish  a  port  by  driving  shipping  else 
where. 

But  for  the  interposition  of  the  slavery  issue,  which 
no  one  would  have  more  gladly  banished  from  Con 
gress,  Douglas  would  have  unquestionably  pushed 
some  such  reform  into  the  foreground.  His  heart  was 
bound  up  in  the  material  progress  of  the  country.  He 
could  never  understand  why  men  should  allow  an  issue 
like  slavery  to  stand  in  the  way  of  prudential  and 
provident  legislation  for  the  expansion  of  the  Kepublic. 
He  laid  claim  to  no  expert  knowledge  in  other  matters : 
he  frankly  confessed  his  ignorance  of  the  mysteries  of 
tariff  schedules.  "I  have  learned  enough  about  the 
tariff,"  said  he  with  a  sly  thrust  at  his  colleagues, 
who  prided  themselves  on  their  wisdom,  "to  know  that 
I  know  scarcely  anything  about  it  at  all;  and  a  man 
makes  considerable  progress  on  a  question  of  this 
kind  when  he  ascertains  that  fact."1  Still,  he  grasped 
an  elementary  principle  that  had  escaped  many  a  pro 
tectionist,  that  "a  tariff  involves  two  conflicting 
principles  which  are  eternally  at  war  with  each  other. 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  953. 


THE  PERSONAL  EQUATION  315 

Every  tariff  involves  the  principles  of  protection  and 
of  oppression,  the  principles  of  benefits  and  of  bur 
dens.  .  . .  The  great  difficulty  is,  so  to  adjust  these  con 
flicting  principles  of  benefits  and  burdens  as  to  make 
one  compensate  for  the  other  in  the  end,  and  give 
equal  benefits  and  equal  burdens  to  every  class  of  the 
community. ' n 

Douglas  was  wiser,  too,  than  the  children  of  light, 
when  he  insisted  that  works  of  art  should  be  admitted 
free  of  duty.  "I  wish  we  could  get  a  model  of  every 
work  of  art,  a  cast  of  every  piece  of  ancient  statuary, 
a  copy  of  every  valuable  painting  and  rare  book,  so 
that  our  artists  might  pursue  their  studies  and  exer 
cise  their  skill  at  home,  and  that  our  literary  men 
might  not  be  exiled  in  the  pursuits  which  bless  man 
kind."2 

Still,  the  prime  interests  of  this  hardy  son  of  the 
West  were  political.  How  could  they  have  been  other 
wise  in  his  environment?  There  is  no  evidence  of  liter 
ary  refinement  in  his  public  utterances;  no  trace  of 
the  culture  which  comes  from  intimate  association  with 
the  classics;  no  suggestion  of  inspiration  quaffed  in 
communion  with  imaginative  and  poetic  souls.  An 
amusing  recognition  of  these  limitations  is  vouched  for 
by  a  friend,  who  erased  a  line  of  poetry  from  a  manu 
script  copy  of  a  public  address  by  Douglas.  Taken  to 
task  for  his  presumption,  he  defended  himself  by  the 
indisputable  assertion,  that  Douglas  was  never  known 
to  have  quoted  a  line  of  poetry  in  his  life.3  Yet  the 
unimaginative  Douglas  anticipated  the  era  of  aerial 
navigation  now  just  dawning.  On  one  occasion,  he 

*  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  953.  •!&*&,  p.  1050. 

*  Chicago  Times,  January  27,  1858. 


316  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

urged  upon  the  Senate  a  memorial  from  an  aeronaut, 
who  desired  the  aid  of  the  government  in  experiments 
which  he  was  conducting  with  dirigible  balloons.  When 
the  Senate,  in  a  mirthful  mood,  proposed  to  refer 
the  petition  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs, 
Douglas  protested  that  the  subject  should  be  treated 
seriously.1 

While  Douglas  was  thus  steadily  growing  into  com 
plete  accord  with  the  New  England  elements  in  his 
section — save  on  one  vital  point, — he  fell  captive  to 
the  beauty  and  grace  of  one  whose  associations  were 
'with  men  and  women  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line. 
Adele  Cutts  was  the  daughter  of  Mr.  J.  Madison  Cutts 
of  Washington,  who  belonged  to  an  old  Maryland 
family.  She  was  the  great-niece  of  Dolly  Madison, 
whom  she  much  resembled  in  charm  of  manner.  When 
Douglas  first  made  her  acquaintance,  she  was  the  belle 
of  Washington  society, — in  the  days  when  the  capital 
still  boasted  of  a  genuine  aristocracy  of  gentleness, 
grace,  and  talent.  There  are  no  conflicting  testimonies 
as  to  her  beauty.  Women  spoke  of  her  as  "beautiful 
as  a  pearl;  "  to  men  she  seemed  "a  most  lovely  and 
queenly  apparition."1  Both  men  and  women  found 
her  sunny-tempered,  generous,  warm-hearted,  and  sin 
cere.  What  could  there  have  been  in  the  serious- 
minded,  dark-visaged  "Little  Giant"  to  win  the  hand 
of  this  mistress  of  many  hearts?  Perhaps  she  saw 
"Othello's  visage  in  his  mind";  perhaps  she  yielded 
to  the  imperious  will  which  would  accept  no  refusal; 
at  all  events,  Adele  Cutts  chose  this  plain  little  man  of 

1  Globe,  31  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  132. 

2  Mrs.    Pryor,    Eeminiscences    of    Peace    and    War,    p.    68;    Villard, 
Memoirs,  I,  p.  92. 


THE  PEKSONAL  EQUATION  317 

middle-age  in  preference  to  men  of  wealth  and  title.1 
It  proved  to  be  in  every  respect  a  happy  marriage.2 
He  cherished  her  with  all  the  warmth  of  his  manly 
affection;  she  became  the  devoted  partner  of  all  his 
toils.  His  two  boys  found  in  her  a  true  mother;  and 
there  was  not  a  household  in  Washington  where  home- 
life  was  graced  with  tenderer  mutual  affection.3 

Across  this  picture  of  domestic  felicity,  there  fell  but 
a  single,  fugitive  shadow.  Adele  Cutts  was  an  ad 
herent  of  the  Eoman  Church;  and  at  a  time  when 
Native  Americanism  was  running  riot  with  the  sense 
of  even  intelligent  men,  such  ecclesiastical  connections 
were  made  the  subject  of  some  odious  comment.  Al 
though  Douglas  permitted  his  boys  to  be  educated  in 
the  Catholic  faith,  and  profoundly  respected  the 
religious  instincts  of  his  tender-hearted  wife,  he  never 
entered  into  the  Eoman  communion,  nor  in  fact  identi 
fied  himself  with  any  church.4  Much  of  his  relentless 
criticism  of  Native  Americanism  can  be  traced  to  his 
abhorrence  of  religious  intolerance  in  any  form. 

This  alliance  meant  much  to  Douglas.  Since  the 
death  of  his  first  wife,  he  had  grown  careless  in  his 
dress  and  bearing,  too  little  regardful  of  conventionali 
ties.  He  had  sought  by  preference  the  society  of  men, 
and  had  lost  those  external  marks  of  good-breeding 
which  companionship  with  gentlewomen  had  given 
him.  Insensibly  he  had  fallen  a  prey  to  a  certain 
harshness  and  bitterness  of  temper,  which  was  foreign 
to  his  nature ;  and  he  had  become  reckless,  so  men  said, 

1  Letter  of  Mrs.  Lippincott  ("Grace  Greenwood ")  to  the  writer. 

2  Conversation  with  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  Esq.,  of  Chicago. 
8  The  marriage  took  place  November  20,  1856. 

4  See  Philadelphia  Press,  June  8,  1861. 


318  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

because  of  defeated  ambition.  But  now  yielding  to 
the  warmth  of  tender  domesticity,  the  true  nature  of 
the  man  asserted  itself.1  He  grew,  perhaps  not  less 
ambitious,  but  more  sensible  of  the  obligations  which 
leadership  imposed. 

No  one  could  gainsay  his  leadership.  He  was  in 
disputably  the  most  influential  man  in  his  party;  and 
this  leadership  was  not  bought  by  obsequiousness  to 
party  opinion,  nor  by  the  shadowy  arts  of  the  ma 
chine  politician  alone.  True,  he  was  a  spoilsman,  like 
all  of  his  contemporaries.  He  was  not  above  using 
the  spoils  of  office  to  reward  faithful  followers.  Bep- 
rehensible  as  the  system  was,  and  is,  there  is  perhaps 
a  redeeming  feature  in  this  aspect  of  American  politics. 
The  ignorant  foreigner  was  reconciled  to  government 
because  it  was  made  to  appear  to  him  as  a  personal 
benefactor.  Due  credit  must  be  given  to  those  leaders 
like  Douglas,  who  fired  the  hearts  of  Irishmen  and 
Germans  with  loyalty  to  the  Union  through  the  medium 
of  party.2 

The  hold  of  Douglas  upon  his  following,  however, 
cannot  be  explained  by  sordid  appeals  to  their  self- 
interest.  He  commanded  the  unbought  service  of 
thousands.  In  the  early  days  of  his  career,  he  had 
found  loyal  friends,  who  labored  unremittingly  for  his 
advancement,  without  hope  of  pecuniary  reward  or  of 
any  return  but  personal  gratitude;  and  throughout 
his  career  he  drew  upon  this  vast  fund  of  personal 
loyalty.  His  capacity  for  warm  friendships  was  un 
limited.  He  made  men,  particularly  young  men,  feel 

1  Letter  of  J.  H.  Roberts,  Esq.,  of  Chicago  to  the  writer;  also  letter  of 
Mrs.  Lippincott  to  the  writer. 

9  See  Philadelphia  Press,  November  17,  1860. 


THE  PERSONAL  EQUATION  319 

that  it  was  an  inestimable  boon  to  be  permitted  to 
labor  with  him  "for  the  cause. "  Far  away  in  Asia 
Minor,  with  his  mind  teeming  with  a  thousand  strange 
sensations,  he  can  yet  think  of  a  friend  at  the  antipodes 
who  nurses  a  grievance  against  him;  and  forthwith  he 
sits  down  and  writes  five  pages  of  generous,  affec 
tionate  remonstrance.1  In  the  thick  of  an  important 
campaign,  when  countless  demands  are  made  upon 
his  time,  he  finds  a  moment  to  lay  his  hand  upon  the 
shoulder  of  a  young  German  ward-politician  with  the 
hearty  word,  "I  count  very  much  on  your  help  in  this 
election."2  If  this  was  the  art  of  a  politician,  it  was 
art  reduced  to  artlessness. 

Not  least  among  the  qualities  which  made  Douglas 
a  great,  persuasive,  popular  leader,  was  his  quite  ex 
traordinary  memory  for  names  and  faces,  and  his 
unaffected  interest  in  the  personal  life  of  those  whom 
he  called  his  friends.  "He  gave  to  every  one  of  those 
humble  and  practically  nameless  followers  the  impres 
sion,  the  feeling,  that  he  was  the  frank,  personal  friend 
of  each  one  of  them."3  Doubtless  he  was  well  aware 
that  there  is  no  subtler  form  of  flattery,  than  to  call 
individuals  by  name  who  believe  themselves  to  be  for 
gotten  pawns  in  a  great  game ;  and  he  may  well  have 
cultivated  the  profitable  habit.  Still,  the  fact  remains, 
that  it  was  an  innate  temperamental  quality  which 
made  him  frank  and  ingenuous  in  his  intercourse  with 
all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men. 

1  For  a  copy  of  this  letter,  I  am  indebted  to  J.  H.  Eoberts,  Esq.,  of 
Chicago. 

2  Conversation  with  Henry  Greenbaum,  Esq.,  of  Chicago. 

"Major  G.  M.  McConnell  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Illinois  His 
torical  Society,  1900;  see  also  Forney,  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  I, 
p.  147. 


320  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

Those  who  judged  the  man  by  the  senator,  often 
failed  to  understand  his  temperament.  He  was  known 
as  a  hard  hitter  in  parliamentary  encounters.  He  never 
failed  to  give  a  Eoland  for  an  Oliver.  In  the  heat 
of  debate,  he  was  often  guilty  of  harsh,  bitter  invec 
tive.  His  manner  betrayed  a  lack  of  fineness  and  good- 
breeding.  But  his  resentment  vanished  with  the 
spoken  word.  He  repented  the  barbed  shaft,  the  mo 
ment  it  quitted  his  bow.  He  would  invite  to  his  table 
the  very  men  with  whom  he  had  been  in  acrimonious 
controversy, — and  perhaps  renew  the  controversy  next 
day.  Greeley  testified  to  this  absence  of  resentment. 
On  a  certain  occasion,  after  the  New  York  Tribune  had 
attacked  Douglas  savagely,  a  mutual  acquaintance 
asked  Douglas  if  he  objected  to  meeting  the  redoubt 
able  Greeley.  "Not  at  all,"  was  the  good-natured 
reply,  "I  always  pay  that  class  of  political  debts  as  I 
go  along,  so  as  to  have  no  trouble  with  them  in  social 
intercourse  and  to  leave  none  for  my  executors  to 
settle."1 

In  the  round  of  social  functions  which  Senator  and 
Mrs.  Douglas  enjoyed,  there  was  little  time  for  quiet 
thought  and  reflection.  Men  who  met  him  night  after 
night  at  receptions  and  dinners,  marvelled  at  the 
punctuality  with  which  he  returned  to  the  routine 
work  of  the  Senate  next  morning.  Yet  there  was  not 
a  member  of  the  Senate  who  had  a  readier  command 
of  facts  germane  to  the  discussions  of  the  hour.  His 
memory  was  a  willing  slave  which  never  failed  to  do  the 
bidding  of  master  intellect.  Some  of  his  ablest  and 
most  effective  speeches  were  made  without  prepara- 

'Schuyler  Coif  ax  in  the  South  Bend  Eegister,  June,  1861;  Forney 
in  his  Eulogy,  1861;  Greeley,  Eecollections  of  a  Busy  Life,  p.  359. 


THE  PERSONAL  EQUATION  321 

tion  and  with  only  a  few  pencilled  notes  at  hand.  Truly 
Nature  had  been  lavish  in  her  gifts  to  him. 

To  nine-tenths  of  his  devoted  followers,  he  was  still 
"  Judge"  Douglas.  It  was  odd  that  the  title,  so  quickly 
earned  and  so  briefly  worn,  should  have  stuck  so  per 
sistently  to  him.  In  legal  attainments  he  fell  far  short 
of  many  of  his  colleagues  in  the  Senate.  Had  he  but 
chosen  to  apply  himself,  he  might  have  been  a  conspicu 
ous  leader  of  the  American  bar ;  but  law  was  ever  to 
him  the  servant  of  politics,  and  he  never  cared  to  make 
the  servant  greater  than  his  lord.  That  he  would  have 
developed  judicial  qualities,  may  well  be  doubted ;  ad 
vocate  he  was  and  advocate  he  remained,  to  the  end 
of  his  days.  So  it  was  that  when  a  legal  question  arose, 
with  far-reaching  implications  for  American  politics, 
the  lawyer  and  politician,  rather  than  the  judge,  laid 
hold  upon  the  points  of  political  significance. 

The  inauguration  of  James  Buchanan  and  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  two  days  later, 
marked  a  turning  point  in  the  career  of  Judge  Douglas. 
Of  this  he  was  of  course  unaware.  He  accepted  the 
advent  of  his  successful  rival  with  composure,  and 
the  opinion  of  the  Court,  with  comparative  indifference. 
In  a  speech  before  the  Grand  Jury  of  the  United  States 
District  Court  at  Springfield,  three  months  later,  he 
referred  publicly  for  the  first  time  to  the  Dred  Scott 
case.  Senator,  and  not  Judge,  Douglas  was  much  in 
evidence.  He  swallowed  the  opinion  of  the  majority 
of  the  court  without  wincing — the  obiter  dictum  and 
all.  Nay,  more,  he  praised  the  Court  for  passing,  like 
honest  and  conscientious  judges,  from  the  technicali 
ties  of  the  case  to  the  real  merits  of  the  questions  in 
volved.  The  material,  controlling  points  of  the  case 
21 


322  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

were :  first,  that  a  negro  descended  from  slave  parents 
could  not  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States;  second, 
that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  unconstitutional 
and  void  from  the  beginning,  and  thus  could  not  ex 
tinguish  a  master's  right  to  his  slave  in  any  Territory. 
"  "While  the  right  continues  in  full  force  under  ....  the 
Constitution,"  he  added,  "and  cannot  be  divested  or 
alienated  by  an  act  of  Congress,  it  necessarily  remains 
a  barren  and  worthless  right,  unless  sustained,  pro 
tected,  and  enforced  by  appropriate  police  regulations 
and  local  legislation,  prescribing  adequate  remedies 
for  its  violation.  These  regulations  and  remedies  must 
necessarily  depend  entirely  upon  the  will  and  wishes 
of  the  people  of  the  Territory,  as  they  can  only  be 
prescribed  by  the  local  legislatures."  Hence  the  tri 
umphant  conclusion  that  "the  great  principle  of  popu 
lar  sovereignty  and  self-government  is  sustained  and 
firmly  established  by  the  authority  of  this  decision."1 

There  were  acute  legal  minds  who  thought  that  they 
detected  a  false  note  in  this  paean.  Was  this  a  neces 
sary  implication  from  the  Dred  Scott  decision?  Was 
it  the  intention  of  the  Court  to  leave  the  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty  standing  upright?  Was  not  the 
decision  rather  fatal  to  the  great  doctrine — the  shib 
boleth  of  the  Democratic  party? 

On  this  occasion  Douglas  had  nothing  to  add  to  his 
exposition  of  the  Dred  Scott  case,  further  than  to  point 
out  the  happy  escape  of  white  supremacy  from  African 
equality.  And  here  he  struck  the  note  which  put  him 
out  of  accord  with  those  Northern  constituents  with 
whom  he  was  otherwise  in  complete  harmony.  "When 

*  The  New  York  Times,  June  23,  1857,  published  this  speech  of 
June  12th,  in  full. 


THE  PERSONAL  EQUATION  323 

you  confer  upon  the  African  race  the  privileges  of 
citizenship,  and  put  them  on  an  equality  with  white 
men  at  the  polls,  in  the  jury  box,  on  the  bench,  in  the 
Executive  chair,  and  in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  upon 
what  principle  will  you  deny  their  equality  at  the  fes 
tive  board  and  in  the  domestic  circle?"  In  the  follow 
ing  year,  he  received  his  answer  in  the  homely  words 
of  Abraham  Lincoln:  "I  do  not  understand  that  be 
cause  I  do  not  want  a  negro  woman  for  a  slave  I  must 
necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife." 


CHAPTEE  XV 

THE  EEVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS 

Had  anyone  prophesied  at  the  close  of  the  year  1856, 
that  within  a  twelvemonth  Douglas  would  be  denounced 
as  a  traitor  to  Democracy,  he  would  have  been  thought 
mad.  That  Douglas  of  all  men  should  break  with 
his  party  under  any  circumstances  was  almost  un 
thinkable.  His  whole  public  career  had  been  insepa 
rably  connected  with  his  party.  To  be  sure,  he  had 
never  gone  so  far  as  to  say  "my  party  right  or 
wrong" ;  but  that  was  because  he  had  never  felt  obliged 
to  make  a  moral  choice.  He  was  always  convinced  that 
his  party  was  right.  Within  the  circumference  of 
party,  he  had  always  found  ample  freedom  of  move 
ment.  He  had  never  lacked  the  courage  of  his  con 
victions,  but  hitherto  his  convictions  had  never  collided 
with  the  dominant  opinion  of  Democracy.  He  un 
doubtedly  believed  profoundly  in  the  mission  of  his 
party,  as  an  organization  standing  above  all  for  popu 
lar  government  and  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 
No  ordinary  circumstances  would  justify  him  in 
weakening  the  influence  or  impairing  the  organization 
of  the  Democratic  party.  Paradoxical  as  it  may  seem, 
his  partisanship  was  dictated  by  a  profound  patriotism. 
He  believed  the  maintenance  of  the  Union  to  be  de 
pendent  upon  the  integrity  of  his  party.  So  thinking 
and  feeling  he  entered  upon  the  most  memorable  con 
troversy  of  his  career. 

When  President  Buchanan  asked  Robert  J.  Walker 

324 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        325 

of  Mississippi  to  become  governor  of  Kansas,  the  choice 
met  with  the  hearty  approval  of  Douglas.  Not  all  the 
President's  appointments  had  been  acceptable  to  the 
Senator  from  Illinois.  But  here  was  one  that  he  could 
indorse  unreservedly.  He  used  all  his  influence  to 
persuade  Walker  to  accept  the  uncoveted  mission. 
With  great  reluctance  Walker  consented,  but  only 
upon  the  most  explicit  understanding  with  the  adminis 
tration  as  to  the  policy  to  be  followed  in  Kansas.  It 
was  well  understood  on  both  sides  that  a  true  construc 
tion  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  required  the  submis 
sion  to  popular  vote  of  any  constitution  which  the 
prospective  convention  might  adopt.  This  was  em 
phatically  the  view  of  Douglas,  whom  Governor  Walker 
took  pains  to  consult  on  his  way  through  Chicago.1 

The  call  for  an  election  of  delegates  to  a  constitu 
tional  convention  had  already  been  issued,  when 
Walker  reached  Kansas.  The  free-State  people  were 
incensed  because  the  appointment  of  delegates  had 
been  made  on  the  basis  of  a  defective  census  and  regis 
tration;  and  even  the  assurance  of  the  governor,  in 
his  inaugural,  that  the  constitution  would  be  submitted 
to  a  popular  vote,  failed  to  overcome  their  distrust. 
They  therefore  took  no  part  in  the  election  of  delegates. 
This  course  was  unfortunate,  for  it  gave  the  control 
of  the  convention  wholly  into  the  hands  of  the  pro- 
slavery  party,  with  consequences  that  were  far-reach 
ing  for  Kansas  and  the  nation.2  But  by  October  the 

1  Report  of   the   Covode   Committee,   pp.   105-106;   Cutts,   Constitu 
tional  and  Party  Questions,  p.  Ill;  Speech  of  Douglas  at  Milwaukee, 
Wis.,  October  14,  1860,  Chicago  Times  and  Herald,  October  17,  1860. 

2  Spring,  Kansas,  p.  213;  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II, 
p.  274. 


326  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

free-State  party  had  abandoned  its  policy  of  abstention 
from  territorial  politics,  so  far  as  to  participate  in  the 
election  of  a  new  territorial  legislature.  The  result 
was  a  decisive  free-State  victory.  The  next  legisla 
ture  would  have  an  ample  majority  of  free-State  men 
in  both  chambers.  It  was  with  the  discomfiting  knowl 
edge,  then,  that  they  represented  only  a  minority  of  the 
community  that  the  delegates  of  the  constitutional  con 
vention  began  their  labors.1  It  was  clear  to  the  dullest 
intelligence  that  any  pro-slavery  constitution  would 
be  voted  down,  if  it  were  submitted  fairly  to  the  people 
of  Kansas.  Gloom  settled  down  upon  the  hopes  of  the 
pro-slavery  party. 

When  the  document  which  embodied  the  labors  of 
the  convention  was  made  public,  the  free-State  party 
awoke  from  its  late  complacence  to  find  itself  tricked 
by  a  desperate  game.  The  constitution  was  not  to  be 
submitted  to  a  full  and  fair  vote ;  but  only  the  article 
relating  to  slavery.  The  people  of  Kansas  were  to 
vote  for  the  "Constitution  with  slavery"  or  for  the 
' '  Constitution  with  no  slavery. ' '  By  either  alternative 
the  constitution  would  be  adopted.  But  should  the 
constitution  with  no  slavery  be  ratified,  a  clause  of 
the  schedule  still  guaranteed  "the  right  of  property 
in  slaves  now  in  this  Territory."2  The  choice  offered 
to  an  opponent  of  slavery  in  Kansas  was  between  a 
constitution  sanctioning  and  safeguarding  all  forms 
of  slave  property,3  and  a  constitution  which  guaran 
teed  the  full  possession  of  slaves  then  in  the  Territory, 

Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  277-278. 
*  Ibid.,  pp.  278-279;  Spring,  Kansas,  p.  223. 

8  See  Article  VII,  of  the  Kansas  constitution,  Senate  Keports,  No.  82, 
35  Cong.,  1  Sess. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS       327 

with  no  assurances  as  to  the  status  of  the  natural  in 
crease  of  these  slaves.  Viewed  in  the  most  charitable 
light,  this  was  a  gambler's  device  for  securing  the 
stakes  by  hook  or  crook.  Still  further  to  guard  exist 
ing  property  rights  in  slaves,  it  was  provided  that  if 
the  constitution  should  be  amended  after  1864,  no 
alteration  should  be  made  to  affect  "the  rights  of 
property  in  the  ownership  of  slaves."1 

The  news  from  Lecompton  stirred  Douglas  pro 
foundly.  In  a  peculiar  sense  he  stood  sponsor  for 
justice  to  bleeding  Kansas,  not  only  because  he  had 
advocated  in  abstract  terms  the  perfect  freedom  of 
the  people  to  form  their  domestic  institutions  in  their 
own  way,  but  because  he  had  become  personally  re 
sponsible  for  the  conduct  of  the  leader  of  the  Lecomp 
ton  party.  John  Calhoun,  president  of  the  convention, 
had  been  appointed  surveyor  general  of  the  Territory 
upon  his  recommendation.  Governor  Walker  had  re 
tained  Calhoun  in  that  office  because  of  Douglas's 
assurance  that  Calhoun  would  support  the  policy  of 
submission.2  Moreover,  Governor  Walker  had  gone  to 
his  post  with  the  assurance  that  the  leaders  of  the 
administration  would  support  this  course. 

Was  it  likely  that  the  pro- slavery  party  in  Kansas 
would  take  this  desperate  course,  without  assurance 
of  some  sort  from  Washington?  There  were  persis 
tent  rumors  that  President  Buchanan  approved  the 
Lecompton  constitution,3  but  Douglas  was  loth  to  give 
credence  to  them.  The  press  of  Illinois  and  of  the 
Northwest  voiced  public  sentiment  in  condemning  the 

1  Schedule  Section  14. 

2Covode  Report,  p.  111. 

•Chicago  Times,  November  19,  1857. 


328  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

work  of  the  Lecomptonites.1  Douglas  was  soon  on  his 
way  to  Washington,  determined  to  know  the  Presi 
dent's  mind;  his  own  was  made  np. 

The  interview  between  President  Buchanan  and 
Douglas,  as  recounted  by  the  latter,  takes  on  a  dramatic 
aspect.2  Douglas  found  his  worst  fears  realized.  The 
President  was  clearly  under  the  influence  of  an  aggres 
sive  group  of  Southern  statesmen,  who  were  bent  upon 
making  Kansas  a  slave  State  under  the  Lecompton 
constitution.  Laboring  under  intense  feeling,  Doug 
las  then  threw  down  the  gauntlet:  he  would  oppose 
the  policy  of  the  administration  publicly  to  the  bitter 
end.  "Mr.  Douglas, "  said  the  President  rising  to  his 
feet  excitedly,  "I  desire  you  to  remember  that  no 
Democrat  ever  yet  differed  from  an  administration  of 
his  own  choice  without  being  crushed.  Beware  of  the 
fate  of  Tallmadge  and  Bives."  "Mr.  President,"  re 
joined  Douglas  also  rising,  "I  wish  you  to  remember 
that  General  Jackson  is  dead." 

The  Chicago  Times,  reporting  the  interview,  inti 
mated  that  there  had  been  a  want  of  agreement,  but  no 
lack  of  courtesy  or  regard  on  either  side.  Douglas  was 
not  yet  ready  to  issue  an  ultimatum.  The  situation 
might  be  remedied.  On  the  night  following  this  memo 
rable  encounter,  Douglas  was  serenaded  by  friends 
and  responded  with  a  brief  speech,  but  he  did  not 
allude  to  the  Kansas  question.3  It  was  generally  ex 
pected  that  he  would  show  his  hand  on  Monday,  the 
opening  day  of  Congress.  The  President's  message 

1  Chicago  Times,  November  20  and  21,  1857. 

8  Speech  at  Milwaukee,  October  14,  1860,  Chicago  Times  and  Herald, 
October  17,  1860. 

*  New  York  Tribune,  December  3,  1857. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        329 

did  not  reach  Congress,  however,  until  Tuesday. 
Immediately  upon  its  reading,  Douglas  offered  the 
usual  motion  to  print  the  message,  adding,  as  he  took 
his  seat,  that  he  totally  dissented  from  "that  portion 
of  the  message  which  may  fairly  be  construed  as  ap 
proving  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Lecompton  conven 
tion."  At  an  early  date  he  would  state  the  reasons 
for  his  dissent.1 

On  the  following  day,  December  9th,  Douglas  took 
the  irrevocable  step.  For  three  hours  he  held  the 
Senate  and  the  audience  in  the  galleries  in  rapt  atten 
tion,  while  with  more  than  his  wonted  gravity  and 
earnestness  he  denounced  the  Lecompton  constitu 
tion.2  He  began  with  a  conciliatory  reference  to  the 
President's  message.  He  was  happy  to  find,  after  a 
more  careful  examination,  that  the  President  had  re 
frained  from  making  any  recommendation  as  to  the 
course  which  Congress  should  pursue  with  regard  to 
the  constitution.  And  so,  he  added  adroitly,  the 
Kansas  question  is  not  to  be  treated  as  an  administra 
tion  measure.  He  shared  the  disappointment  of  the 
President  that  the  constitution  had  not  been  sub 
mitted  fully  and  freely  to  the  people  of  Kansas;  but 
the  President,  he  conceived,  had  made  a  fundamental 
error  in  supposing  that  the  Nebraska  Act  provided 
for  the  disposition  of  the  slavery  question  apart  from 
other  local  matters.  The  direct  opposite  was  true. 
The  main  object  of  the  Act  was  to  remove  an  odious 
restriction  by  which  the  people  had  been  prevented 
from  deciding  the  slavery  question  for  themselves, 
like  all  other  local  and  domestic  concerns.  If  the 

1  Globe,  35  Con£.,  1  Gess.,  p.  5. 

a  Chicago  Times,  December  19,  1857. 


330  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

President  was  right  in  thinking  that  by  the  terms  of 
the  Nebraska  bill  the  slavery  question  must  be  sub 
mitted  to  the  people,  then  every  other  clause  of  the 
constitution  should  be  submitted  to  them.  To  do  less 
would  be  to  reduce  popular  sovereignty  to  a  farce. 

But  Douglas  could  not  maintain  this  conciliatory 
attitude.  His  sense  of  justice  was  too  deeply  out 
raged.  He  recalled  facts  which  every  well-informed 
person  knew.  "I  know  that  men,  high  in  authority 
and  in  the  confidence  of  the  territorial  and  National 
Government,  canvassed  every  part  of  Kansas  during 
the  election  of  delegates,  and  each  one  of  them  pledged 
himself  to  the  people  that  no  snap  judgment  was  to 
be  taken.  Up  to  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the  con 
vention,  in  October  last,  the  pretense  was  kept  up, 
the  profession  was  openly  made,  and  believed  by  me, 
and  I  thought  believed  by  them,  that  the  convention 
intended  to  submit  a  constitution  to  the  people,  and 
not  to  attempt  to  put  a  government  in  operation  with 
out  such  submission."1  How  was  this  pledge  re 
deemed?  All  men,  forsooth,  must  vote  for  the  constitu 
tion,  whether  they  like  it  or  not,  in  order  to  be  per 
mitted  to  vote  for  or  against  slavery!  This  would  be 
like  an  election  under  the  First  Consul,  when,  so  his 
enemies  averred,  Napoleon  addressed  his  troops  with 
the  words : '  '  Now,  my  soldiers,  you  are  to  go  to  the  elec 
tion  and  vote  freely  just  as  you  please.  If  you  vote 
for  Napoleon,  all  is  well;  vote  against  him,  and  you 
are  to  be  instantly  shot."  That  was  a  fair  election! 
"This  election,"  said  Douglas  with  bitter  irony,  "is  to 
be  equally  fair!  All  men  in  favor  of  the  constitution 
may  vote  for  it — all  men  against  it  shall  not  vote  at 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  17. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        331 

all!  Why  not  let  them  vote  against  it?  I  have  asked 
a  very  large  number  of  the  gentlemen  who  framed 
the  constitution  ....  and  I  have  received  the  same 
answer  from  every  one  of  them.  .  .  .  They  say  if  they 
allowed  a  negative  vote  the  constitution  would  have 
been  voted  down  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  and 
hence  the  fellows  shall  not  be  allowed  to  vote  at  all.7' 

"Will  you  force  it  on  them  against  their  will,"  he  de 
manded,  "simply  because  they  would  have  voted  it 
down  if  you  had  consulted  them?  If  you  will,  are  you 
going  to  force  it  upon  them  under  the  plea  of  leaving 
them  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  do 
mestic  institutions  in  their  own  way?  Is  that  the  mode 
in  which  I  am  called  upon  to  carry  out  the  principle 
of  self-government  and  popular  sovereignty  in  the 
Territories?"  It  is  no  answer,  he  argued,  that  the 
constitution  is  unobjectionable.  "You  have  no  right 
to  force  an  unexceptionable  constitution  on  a  people." 
The  pro-slavery  clause  was  not  the  offense  in  the  con 
stitution,  to  his  mind.  "If  Kansas  wants  a  slave- 
State  constitution  she  has  a  right  to  it,  if  she  wants 
a  free-State  constitution  she  has  a  right  to  it.  It  is 
none  of  my  business  which  way  the  slavery  clause  is 
decided.  I  care  not  whether  it  is  voted  up  or  down." 
The  whole  affair  looked  to  him  "like  a  system  of 
trickery  and  jugglery  to  defeat  the  fair  expression  of 
the  will  of  the  people."1 

The  vehemence  of  his  utterance  had  now  carried 
Douglas  perhaps  farther  than  he  had  meant  to  go.2 

*Glole,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  17-18. 

3 ' '  I  spoke  rapidly,  without  preparation, ' '  he  afterward  said.  Globe, 
35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  47. 


332  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

He  paused  to  plead  for  a  fair  policy  which  would  re 
deem  party  pledges: 

"Ignore  Lecompton,  ignore  Topeka;  treat  both  those  party  move 
ments  as  irregular  and  void;  pass  a  fair  bill — the  one  that  we  framed 
ourselves  when  we  were  acting  as  a  unit;  have  a  fair  election — and  you 
will  have  peace  in  the  Democratic  party,  and  peace  throughout  the 
country,  in  ninety  days.  The  people  want  a  fair  vote.  They  never 
will  be  satisfied  without  it.  They  never  should  be  satisfied  without  a 
fair  vote  on  their  Constitution 

"Frame  any  other  bill  that  secures  a  fair,  honest  vote,  to  men  of  all 
parties,  and  carries  out  the  pledge  that  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to 
decide  on  their  domestic  institutions  for  themselves,  and  I  will  go  with 
you  with  pleasure,  and  with  all  the  energy  I  may  possess.  But  if  this 
Constitution  is  to  be  forced  down  our  throats,  in  violation  of  the  funda 
mental  principle  of  free  government,  under  a  mode  of  submission  that 
is  a  mockery  and  insult,  I  will  resist  it  to  the  last.  I  have  no  fear  of 
any  party  associations  being  severed.  I  should  regret  any  social  or 
political  estrangement,  even  temporarily;  but  if  it  must  be,  if  I  can  not 
act  with  you  and  preserve  my  faith  and  my  honor,  I  will  stand  on  the 
great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  which  declares  the  right  of  ail 
people  to  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way.  I  will  follow  that  principle  wherever  its 
logical  consequences  may  take  me,  and  I  will  endeavor  to  defend  it 
against  assault  from  any  and  all  quarters.  No  mortal  man  shall  be 
responsible  for  my  action  but  myself.  By  my  action  I  will  compromit 
no  man.'n 

The  speech  made  a  profound  impression.  No  one 
could  mistake  its  import.  The  correspondent  of  the 
New  York  Tribune  was  right  in  thinking  that  it 
"marked  an  important  era  in  our  political  history."2 
Douglas  had  broken  with  the  dominant  pro-slavery 
faction  of  his  party.  How  far  he  would  carry  his  party 
with  him,  remained  to  be  seen.  But  that  a  battle  royal 
was  imminent,  was  believed  on  all  sides.  "The  struggle 
of  Douglas  with  the  slave-power  will  be  a  magnificent 
spectacle  to  witness,"  wrote  one  who  had  hitherto 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  18. 
*New  York  Tribune,  December  9,  1857. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        333 

evinced  little  admiration  for  the  author  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act.1 

Douglas  kept  himself  well  in  hand  throughout  his 
speech.  His  manner  was  at  times  defiant,  but  his 
language  was  restrained.  At  no  time  did  he  disclose 
the  pain  which  his  rupture  with  the  administration 
cost  him,  except  in  his  closing  words.  What  he  had 
to  expect  from  the  friends  of  the  administration  was 
immediately  manifest.  Senator  Bigler  of  Pennsyl 
vania  sprang  to  the  defense  of  the  President.  In  an 
irritating  tone  he  intimated  that  Douglas  himself  had 
changed  his  position  on  the  question  of  submission, 
alluding  to  certain  private  conferences  at  Douglas's^ 
house;  but  as  though  bound  by  a  pledge  of  secrecy, 
Bigler  refrained  from  making  the  charge  in  so  many 
words.  Douglas,  thoroughly  aroused,  at  once  absolved. 
him  from  any  pledges,  and  demanded  to  know  when 
they  had  agreed  not  to  submit  the  constitution  to  the 
people.  The  reply  of  Bigler  was  still  allusive  and 
evasive.  "Does  he  mean  to  say,"  insisted  Douglas 
excitedly,  "that  I  ever  was,  privately  or  publicly,  in 
my  own  house  or  any  other,  in  favor  of  a  constitution 
without  its  being  submitted  to  the  people?"  "I  have 
made  no  such  allegation,"  was  the  reply.  "You  have 
allowed  it  to  be  inferred,"  exclaimed  Douglas  in  ex 
asperated  tones.2  And  then  Green  reminded  him,  that 
in  his  famous  report  of  January  4,  1854,  he  had  pro-' 
posed  to  leave  the  slavery  question  to  the  decision  of 
the  people  "by  their  appropriate  representatives 
chosen  by  them  for  that  purpose,"  with  no  suggestion 


York  Tribune,  December  10,  1857. 
3  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  21-22. 


334  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

of  a  second,  popular  vote.  Truly,  his  most  insidious 
foes  were  now  those  of  his  own  political  household. 

Anti-slavery  men  welcomed  this  revolt  of  Douglas 
without  crediting  him  with  any  but  self-seeking  mo 
tives.  They  could  not  bring  themselves  to  believe 
other  than  ill  of  the  man  who  had  advocated  the  repeal 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Eepublicans  accepted 
his  aid  in  their  struggle  against  the  Lecompton  fraud, 
but  for  the  most  part  continued  to  regard  him  with 
distrust.  Indeed,  Douglas  made  no  effort  to  placate 
them.  He  professed  to  care  nothing  for  the  cause  of 
the  slave  which  was  nearest  their  hearts.  Hostile 
critics,  then,  were  quick  to  point  out  the  probable 
motives  from  which  he  acted.  His  senatorial  term  was 
drawing  to  a  close.  He  was  of  course  desirous  of  a 
re-election.  But  his  nominee  for  governor  had  been 
defeated  at  the  last  election,  and  the  State  had  been 
only  with  difficulty  carried  for  the  national  candidates 
of  the  party.  The  lesson  was  plain:  the  people  of 
Illinois  did  not  approve  the  Kansas  policy  of  Senator 
Douglas.  Hence  the  weathercock  obeyed  the  wind. 

In  all  this  there  was  a  modicum  of  truth.  Douglas 
would  not  have  been  the  power  that  he  was,  had  he  not 
kept  in  touch  with  his  constituency.  But  a  sense  of 
honor,  a  desire  for  consistency,  and  an  abiding  faith 
in  the  justice  of  his  great  principle,  impelled  him  in 
the  same  direction.  These  were  thoroughly  honorable 
motives,  even  if  he  professed  an  indifference  as  to  the 
fate  of  the  negro.  He  had  pledged  his  word  of  honor 
to  his  constituents  that  the  people  of  Kansas  should 
have  a  fair  chance  to  pronounce  upon  their  constitu 
tion.  Nothing  short  of  this  would  have  been  consistent 
with  popular  sovereignty  as  he  had  expounded  it  again 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        335 

and  again.  And  Douglas  was  personally  a  man  of 
honor.  Yet  when  all  has  been  said,  one  cannot  but 
regret  that  the  sense  of  fair  play,  which  was  strong 
in  him,  did  not  assert  itself  in  the  early  stages  of 
the  Kansas  conflict  and  smother  that  lawyer's  instinct 
to  defend  a  client  by  the  technicalities  of  the  law. 
Could  he  only  have  sought  absolute  justice  for  the 
people  of  Kansas  in  the  winter  of  1856,  the  purity  of 
his  motives  would  not  have  been  questioned  in  the 
winter  of  1858. 

Even  those  colleagues  of  Douglas  who  doubted  his 
motives,  could  not  but  admire  his  courage.  It  did, 
indeed,  require  something  more  than  audacity  to  head 
a  revolt  against  the  administration.  No  man  knew 
better  the  thorny  road  that  he  must  now  travel.  No 
man  loved  his  party  more.  No  man  knew  better  the 
hazard  to  the  Union  that  must  follow  a  rupture  in  the 
Democratic  party.  But  if  Douglas  nursed  the  hope  that 
Democratic  senators  would  follow  his  lead,  he  was 
sadly  disappointed.  Three  only  came  to  his  support 
— Broderick  of  California,  Pugh  of  Ohio,  and  Stuart  of 
Michigan, — while  the  lists  of  the  administration  were 
full.  Green,  Bigler,  Fitch,  in  turn  were  set  upon  him. 

Douglas  bitterly  resented  any  attempt  to  read  him 
out  of  the  party  by  making  the  Lecompton  constitution 
the  touchstone  of  genuine  Democracy;  yet  each  day 
made  it  clearer  that  the  administration  had  just  that 
end  in  view.  Douglas  complained  of  a  tyranny  not 
consistent  with  free  Democratic  action.  One  might 
differ  with  the  President  on  every  subject  but  Kansas, 
without  incurring  suspicion.  Every  pensioned  letter 
writer,  he  complained,  had  been  intimating  for  the  last 
two  weeks  that  he  had  deserted  the  Democratic  party 


STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

and  gone  over  to  the  Black  Kepublicans.  He  demanded 
to  know  who  authorized  these  tales.1  Senator  Fitch 
warned  him  solemnly  that  the  Democratic  party  was 
the  only  political  link  in  the  chain  which  now  bound 
the  States  together.  "None  ....  will  hold  that  man 
guiltless,  who  abandons  it  upon  a  question  having  in 
it  so  little  of  practical  importance  ....  and  by  seeking 
its  destruction,  thereby  admits  his  not  unwillingness 
that  a  similar  fate  should  be  visited  on  the  Union,  per 
haps,  to  subserve  his  selfish  purpose."2  These  attacks 
roused  Douglas  to  vehement  defiance.  More  em 
phatically  than  ever,  he  declared  the  Lecompton  consti 
tution  "a  trick,  a  fraud  upon  the  rights  of  the  people. " 

If  Douglas  misjudged  the  temper  of  his  colleagues, 
he  at  least  gauged  correctly  the  drift  of  public  senti 
ment  in  Illinois  and  the  Northwest.  Of  fifty-six 
Democratic  newspapers  in  Illinois,  but  one  ventured 
to  condone  the  Lecompton  fraud.3  Mass  meetings 
in  various  cities  of  the  Northwest  expressed  confidence 
in  the  course  of  Senator  Douglas. 

He  now  occupied  a  unique  position  at  the  capital. 
Visitors  were  quite  as  eager  to  see  the  man  who  had 
headed  the  revolt  as  to  greet  the  chief  executive.4 
His  residence,  where  Mrs.  Douglas  dispensed  a  gra 
cious  hospitality,  was  fairly  besieged  with  callers.5 
Washington  society  was  never  gayer  than  during  this 
memorable  winter.6  None  entertained  more  lavishly 
than  Senator  and  Mrs.  Douglas.  Whatever  unpopu- 

«  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  120.  *lbid.,  p.  137. 

8  Chicago  Times,  December  24,  1857.    *  Ibid.,  December  23,  1857. 
•Correspondent  to  Cleveland  Plaindealer,  quoted  in  Chicago   Times, 
January  29,  1858. 

"Mrs.  Jefferson  Davis  to  Mrs.  Pierce,  MS.  Letter,  April  4,  1858. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        337 

larity  he  incurred  at  the  Capitol,  she  more  than 
offset  by  her  charming  and  gracious  personality. 
Acknowledged  as  the  reigning  queen  of  the  circle  in 
which  she  moved,  Mrs.  Douglas  displayed  a  social 
initiative  that  seconded  admirably  the  independent, 
self-reliant  attitude  of  her  husband.  When  Adele 
Cutts  Douglas  chose  to  close  the  shutters  of  her  house 
at  noon,  and  hold  a  reception  by  artificial  light  every 
Saturday  afternoon,  society  followed  her  lead.  There 
were  no  more  brilliant  affairs  in  Washington  than 
these  afternoon  receptions  and  hops  at  the  Douglas 
residence  in  Minnesota  Block.1  In  contrast  to  these 
functions  dominated  by  a  thoroughly  charming  per 
sonality,  the  formal  precision  of  the  receptions  at  the 
White  House  was  somewhat  chilling  and  forbidding. 
President  Buchanan,  bachelor,  with  his  handsome  but 
somewhat  self-contained  niece,  was  not  equal  to  this 
social  rivalry.2  Moreover,  the  cares  of  office  permitted 
the  perplexed,  wearied,  and  timid  executive  no  respite 
day  or  night. 

Events  in  Kansas  gave  heart  to  those  who  were 
fighting  Lecomptonism.  At  the  election  appointed  by 
the  convention,  the  "constitution  with  slavery"  was 
adopted  by  a  large  majority,  the  free-State  people 
refusing  to  vote ;  but  the  legislature,  now  in  the  control 
of  the  free-State  party,  had  already  provided  for  a 
fair  vote  on  the  whole  constitution.  On  this  second 
vote  the  majority  was  overwhelmingly  against  the 
constitution.  Information  from  various  sources  cor 
roborated  the  deductions  which  unprejudiced  observers 
drew  from  the  voting.  It  was  as  clear  as  day  that  the 

1  Mrs.  Roger  iryor,  Reminiscences  of  Peace  and  War,  pp.  69-70. 

2  Ibid.,  Chapter  4. 

22 


338  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

people  of  Kansas  did  not  regard  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution  as  a  fair  expression  of  their  will.1 

Ignoring  the  light  which  made  the  path  of  duty  plain, 
President  Buchanan  sent  the  Lecompton  constitution 
to  Congress  with  a  message  recommending  the  admis 
sion  of  Kansas.2  To  his  mind,  the  Lecompton  conven 
tion  was  legally  constituted  and  had  exercised  its 
powers  faithfully.  The  organic  act  did  not  bind  the 
convention  to  submit  to  the  people  more  than  the  ques 
tion  of  slavery.  Meantime  the  Supreme  Court  had 
handed  down  its  famous  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case. 
Fortified  by  this  dictum,  the  President  told  Congress 
that  slavery  existed  in  Kansas  by  virtue  of  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States.  "Kansas  is,  at  this  mo 
ment,  as  much  a  slave  State  as  Georgia  or  South 
Carolina "!  Slavery,  then,  could  be  prohibited  only  by 
constitutional  provision;  and  those  who  desired  to  do 
away  with  slavery  would  most  speedily  compass  their 
ends,  if  they  admitted  Kansas  at  once  under  this  con 
stitution. 

The  President's  message  with  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territories 
and  gave  rise  to  three  reports :  Senator  Green  of  Mis 
souri  presented  the  majority  report,  recommending 
the  admission  of  Kansas  under  this  constitution; 
Senators  Collamer  and  Wade  united  on  a  minority  re 
port,  leaving  Douglas  to  draft  another  expressing  his 
dissent  on  other  grounds.3  Taken  all  in  all,  this  must 
be  regarded  as  the  most  satisfactory  and  convincing 
of  all  Douglas's  committee  reports.  It  is  strong  be- 

1  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  289. 

2  Message  of  February  2,  1858. 

3  Senate  Report  No.  82,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  February  18,  1858. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        339 

cause  it  is  permeated  by  a  desire  for  justice,  and  rein 
forced  at  every  point  by  a  consummate  marshalling  of 
evidence.  Barely  in  his  career  had  his  conspicuous 
qualities  as  a  special  pleader  been  put  so  unreservedly 
at  the  service  of  simple  justice.  He  planted  himself 
firmly,  at  the  outset,  upon  the  incontrovertible  fact  that 
there  was  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution  was  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of 
Kansas.1 

It  had  been  argued  that,  because  the  Lecompton  con 
vention  had  been  duly  constituted,  with  full  power  to 
ordain  a  constitution  and  establish  a  government,  con 
sequently  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  must  be 
presumed  to  embody  the  popular  will.  Douglas  immedi 
ately  challenged  this  assumption.  The  convention  had 
no  more  power  than  the  territorial  legislature  could 
confer.  By  no  fair  construction  of  the  Kansas-Neb 
raska  Act  could  it  be  assumed  that  the  people  of  the 
Territory  were  authorized,  "at  their  own  will  and 
pleasure,  to  resolve  themselves  into  a  sovereign  power, 
and  to  abrogate  and  annul  the  organic  act  and  terri 
torial  government  established  by  Congress,  and  to  or 
dain  a  constitution  and  State  government  upon  their 
ruins,  without  the  consent  of  Congress. "  Surely,  then, 
a  convention  which  the  territorial  legislature  called 
into  being  could  not  abrogate  or  impair  the  authority 
of  that  territorial  government  established  by  Congress. 
Hence,  he  concluded,  the  Lecompton  constitution, 
formed  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  must  be  con 
sidered  as  a  memorial  or  petition,  which  Congress  may 
accept  or  reject.  The  convention  was  the  creature  of 
the  territorial  legislature.  "Such  being  the  case, 

1  Minority  Beport,  p.  52. 


340  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

whenever  the  legislature  ascertained  that  the  conven 
tion  whose  existence  depended  upon  its  will,  had  de 
vised  a  scheme  to  force  a  constitution  upon  the  people 
without  their  consent,  and  without  any  authority  from 
Congress, ....  it  became  their  imperative  duty  to  inter 
pose  and  exert  the  authority  conferred  upon  them  by 
Congress  in  the  organic  act,  and  arrest  and  prevent 
the  consummation  of  the  scheme  before  it  had  gone  in 
to  operation."1  This  was  an  unanswerable  argument. 
In  the  prolonged  debate  upon  the  admission  of 
Kansas,  Douglas  took  part  only  as  some  taunt  or  chal 
lenge  brought  him  to  his  feet.  While  the  bill  for  the 
admission  of  Minnesota,  also  reported  by  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories,  was  under  fire,  Senator  Brown 
of  Mississippi  elicited  from  Douglas  the  significant 
concession,  that  he  did  not  deem  an  enabling  act  abso 
lutely  essential,  so  long  as  the  constitution  clearly  em 
bodied  the  will  of  the  people.  Neither  did  he  think  a 
submission  of  the  constitution  always  essential ;  it  was, 
however,  a  fair  way  of  ascertaining  the  popular  will, 
when  that  will  was  disputed.  '  *  Satisfy  me  that  the  con 
stitution  adopted  by  the  people  of  Minnesota  is  their 
will,  and  I  am  prepared  to  adopt  it.  Satisfy  me  that 
the  constitution  adopted,  or  said  to  be  adopted,  by  the 
people  of  Kansas,  is  their  will,  and  I  am  prepared  to 
take  it.  ...  I  will  never  apply  one  rule  to  a  free  State 
and  another  to  a  slave-holding  State."2  Nevertheless, 
even  his  Democratic  colleagues  continued  to  believe 
that  slavery  had  something  to  do  with  his  opposition. 
In  the  classic  phraseology  of  Toombs,  "  there  was  a 
*  nigger'  in  it." 

1  Minority  Eeport,  p.  64. 

2  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  502. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        341 

The  opposition  of  Douglas  began  to  cause  no  little 
uneasiness.  Brown  paid  tribute  to  Ms  influence,  when 
he  declared  that  if  the  Senator  from  Illinois  had  stood 
with  the  administration,  "  there  would  not  have  been 
a  ripple  on  the  surf  ace. "  "Sir,  the  Senator  from 
Illinois  gives  life,  he  gives  vitality,  he  gives  energy,  he 
lends  the  aid  of  his  mighty  genius  and  his  powerful 
will  to  the  Opposition  on  this  question/'1  But  Doug 
las  paid  a  fearful  price  for  this  power.  Every  possible 
ounce  of  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  upon  him.  The 
party  press  was  set  upon  him.  His  friends  were 
turned  out  of  office.  The  whole  executive  patronage 
was  wielded  mercilessly  against  his  political  following. 
The  Washington  Union  held  him  up  to  execration  as 
a  traitor,  renegade,  and  deserter.2  "We  cannot  affect 
indifference  at  the  treachery  of  Senator  Douglas, " 
said  a  Eichmond  paper.  "He  was  a  politician  of  con 
siderable  promise.  Association  with  Southern  gentle 
men  had  smoothed  down  the  rugged  vulgarities  of  his 
early  education,  and  he  had  come  to  be  quite  a  decent 
and  well-behaved  person."3  To  political  denunciation 
was  now  to  be  added  the  sting  of  mean  and  contemp 
tible  personalities. 

Small  wonder  that  even  the  vigorous  health  of  "the 
Little  Giant"  succumbed  to  these  assaults.  For  a  fort 
night  he  was  confined  to  his  bed,  rising  only  by  sheer 
force  of  will  to  make  a  final  plea  for  sanity,  before  his 
party  took  its  suicidal  plunge.  He  spoke  on  the  22d 
of  March  under  exceptional  conditions.  In  the  expec 
tation  that  he  would  speak  in  the  forenoon,  people 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  572-573. 

*  Washington  Union,  February  26,  1858. 

'Richmond  South,  quoted  in  Chicago  Times,  December  18,  1857. 


342  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

thronged  the  galleries  at  an  early  hour,  and  refused  to 
give  up  their  seats,  even  when  it  was  announced  that 
the  Senator  from  Illinois  would  not  address  the  Senate 
until  seven  o  'clock  in  the  evening.  When  the  hour  came, 
crowds  still  held  possession  of  the  galleries,  so  that 
not  even  standing  room  was  available.  The  door 
keepers  wrestled  in  vain  with  an  impatient  throng 
without,  until  by  motion  of  Senator  Gwin,  ladies  were 
admitted  to  the  floor  of  the  chamber.  Even  then,  Doug 
las  was  obliged  to  pause  several  times,  for  the  con 
fusion  around  the  doors  to  subside.1  He  spoke  with 
manifest  difficulty,  but  he  was  more  defiant  than  ever. 
His  speech  was  at  once  a  protest  and  a  personal  vindi 
cation.  Denial  of  the  right  of  the  administration  to 
force  the  Lecompton  constitution  upon  the  people  of 
Kansas,  went  hand  in  hand  with  a  defense  of  his  own 
Democracy.  Sentences  culled  here  and  there  suggest 
not  unfairly  the  stinging  rebukes  and  defiant  challenges 
that  accentuated  the  none  too  coherent  course  of  his 
speech : 

"I  am  told  that  this  Lecompton  constitution  is  a  party  test,  a  party 

measure ;  that  no  man  is  a  Democrat  who  does  not  sanction  it 

Sir,  who  made  it  a  party  test?    Who  made  it  a  party  measure? 

Who  has  interpolated  this  Lecompton  constitution  into  the  party  plat 
form  ? Oh !  but  we  are  told  it  is  an  Administration  measure. 

Because  it  is  an  Administration  measure,  does  it  therefore  follow  that 

it  is  a  party  measure?" "I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  the 

President  or  his  Cabinet ....  to  tell  me  my  duty  in  the  Senate  Chamber. ' ' 
"Am  I  to  be  told  that  I  must  obey  the  Executive  and  betray  my  State, 
or  else  be  branded  as  a  traitor  to  the  party,  and  hunted  down  by  all 
the  newspapers  that  share  the  patronage  of  the  government,  and  every 
man  who  holds  a  petty  office  in  any  part  of  my  State  to  have  the  question 
put  to  him,  'Are  you  Douglas's  enemy?  if  not,  your  head  comes  off.'  ' 

1  Sheahan,    Douglas,    p.    328 ;    Globe,    35    Cong.,    1    Sess.,    App.,   pp. 
193-194. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        343 

I  intend  to  perform  my  duty  in  accordance  with  my  own  convictions. 
Neither  the  frowns  of  power  nor  the  influence  of  patronage  will 
change  my  action,  or  drive  me  from  my  principles.  I  stand  firmly, 
immovably  upon  those  great  principles  of  self-government  and  state 
sovereignty  upon  which  the  campaign  was  fought  and  the  election 

won If,    standing    firmly   by   my    principles,    I   shall   be    driven 

into  private  life,  it  is  a  fate  that  has  no  terrors  for  me.  I  prefer 
private  life,  preserving  my  own  self-respect  and  manhood,  to  abject 
and  servile  submission  to  executive  will.  If  the  alternative  be  private 
life  or  servile  obedience  to  executive  will,  I  am  prepared  to  retire. 
Official  position  has  no  charms  for  me  when  deprived  of  that  freedom 
of  thought  and  action  which  becomes  a  gentleman  and  a  senator."1 

On  the  following  day,  the  Senate  passed  the  bill  for 
the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution,  having  rejected  the  amendment  of  Critten- 
den  to  submit  that  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people 
of  Kansas.  A  similar  amendment,  however,  was 
carried  in  the  House.  As  neither  chamber  would  re 
cede  from  its  position,  a  conference  committee  was 
appointed  to  break  the  deadlock.2  It  was  from  this 
committee,  controlled  by  Lecomptonites,  that  the 
famous  English  bill  emanated.  Stated  briefly,  the  sub 
stance  of  this  compromise  measure — for  such  it  was 
intended  to  be — was  as  follows :  Congress  was  to  offer 
to  Kansas  a  conditional  grant  of  public  lands ;  if  this 
land  ordinance  should  be  accepted  by  a  popular  vote, 
Kansas  was  to  be  admitted  to  the  Union  with  the  Le 
compton  constitution  by  proclamation  of  the  Presi 
dent;  if  it  should  be  rejected,  Kansas  was  not  to  be 
admitted  until  the  Territory  had  a  population  equal  to 
the  unit  of  representation  required  for  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives. 

Taken  all  in  all,  the  bill  was  as  great  a  concession  as 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  pp.  194-201,  passim. 

2  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  297-299. 


344  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

could  be  expected  from  the  administration.  Not  all 
were  willing  to  say  that  the  bill  provided  for  a  vote 
on  the  constitution,  but  Northern  adherents  could 
point  to  the  vote  on  the  land  ordinance  as  an  indirect 
vote  upon  the  constitution.  It  is  not  quite  true  to  say 
that  the  land  grant  was  a  bribe  to  the  voters  of  Kansas. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  amount  of  land  granted  was 
only  equal  to  that  usually  offered  to  the  Territories, 
and  it  was  considerably  less  than  the  area  specified 
in  the  Lecompton  constitution.  Moreover,  even  if  the 
land  ordinance  were  defeated  in  order  to  reject  the 
constitution,  the  Territory  was  pretty  sure  to  secure 
as  large  a  grant  at  some  future  time.  It  was  rather 
in  the  alternative  held  out,  that  the  English  bill  was 
unsatisfactory  to  those  who  loved  fair  play.  Still, 
under  the  bill,  the  people  of  Kansas,  by  an  act  of  self- 
denial,  could  defeat  the  Lecompton  constitution.  To 
that  extent,  the  supporters  of  the  administration 
yielded  to  the  importunities  of  the  champion  of  popu 
lar  sovereignty. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  would  not  be  strange 
if  Douglas  "wavered."1  Here  was  an  opportunity 
to  close  the  rift  between  himself  and  the  administra 
tion,  to  heal  party  dissensions,  perhaps  to  save  the 
integrity  of  the  Democratic  party  and  the  Union.  And 
the  price  which  he  would  have  to  pay  was  small.  He 
could  assume,  plausibly  enough, — as  he  had  done  many 
times  before  in  his  career, — that  the  bill  granted  all 
that  he  had  ever  asked.  He  was  morally  sure  that  the 
people  of  Kansas  would  reject  the  land  grant  to  rid 
themselves  of  the  Lecompton  fraud.  Why  hesitate 

1  Wilson,  Else  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  II,  p.  563. 


THE  KEVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        345 

then  as  to  means,  when  the  desired  end  was  in  clear 
view? 

Douglas  found  himself  subjected  to  a  new  pres 
sure,  harder  even  to  resist  than  any  he  had  yet  felt. 
Some  of  his  staunch  supporters  in  the  anti-Lecompton 
struggle  went  over  to  the  administration,  covering 
their  retreat  by  just  such  excuses  as  have  been  sug 
gested.  Was  he  wiser  and  more  conscientious  than 
they?  A  refusal  to  accept  the  proffered  olive  branch 
now  meant, — he  knew  it  well, — the  irreconcilable  en 
mity  of  the  Buchanan  faction.  And  he  was  not  asked  to 
recant,  but  only  to  accept  what  he  had  always  deemed 
the  very  essence  of  statesmanship,  a  compromise.  His 
Eepublican  allies  promptly  evinced  their  distrust. 
They  fully  expected  him  to  join  his  former  associates. 
From  them  he  could  expect  no  sympathy  in  such  a 
dilemma.1  His  political  ambitions,  no  doubt,  added  to 
his  perplexity.  They  were  bound  up  in  the  fate  of  the 
party,  the  integrity  of  which  was  now  menaced  by 
his  revolt.  On  the  other  hand,  he  was  fully  conscious 
that  his  Illinois  constituency  approved  of  his  opposi 
tion  to  Lecoinptonism  and  would  regard  a  retreat 
across  this  improvised  political  bridge  as  both  in 
glorious  and  treacherous.  Agitated  by  conflicting 
emotions,  Douglas  made  a  decision  which  probably  cost 
him  more  anguish  than  any  he  ever  made ;  and  when  all 
has  been  said  to  the  contrary,  love  of  fair  play  would 
seem  to  have  been  his  governing  motive.2 

When  Douglas  rose  to  address  the  Senate  on  the 
English  bill,  April  29th,  he  betrayed  some  of  the  emo- 

1  Wilson,  Eise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  IT,  pp.  566-567. 
aThis  cannot,  of  course,  be  demonstrated,  but  it  accords  with  his 
subsequent  conduct. 


346  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

tion  under  which  he  had  made  his  decision.  He  con 
fessed  an  "anxious  desire "  to  find  such  provisions  as 
would  permit  him  to  support  the  bill;  but  he  was 
painfully  forced  to  declare  that  he  could  not  find  the 
principle  for  which  he  had  contended,  fairly  carried 
out.  He  was  unable  to  reconcile  popular  sovereignty 
with  the  proposed  intervention  of  Congress  in  the 
English  bill.  "It  is  intervention  with  inducements  to 
control  the  result.  It  is  intervention  with  a  bounty  on 
the  one  side  and  a  penalty  on  the  other. J>1  He  frankly 
admitted  that  he  did  not  believe  there  was  enough  in 
the  bounty  nor  enough  in  the  penalty  to  influence  ma 
terially  the  vote  of  the  people  of  Kansas ;  but  it  involved 
1  '  the  principle  of  freedom  of  election  and  ....  the  great 
principle  of  self-government  upon  which  our  institu 
tions  rest."  And  upon  this  principle  he  took  his  stand. 
"With  all  the  anxiety  that  I  have  had,"  said  he  with 
deep  feeling,  "to  be  able  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  in 
harmony  with  the  overwhelming  majority  of  my  poli 
tical  friends  in  Congress,  I  could  not  bring  my  judg 
ment  or  conscience  to  the  conclusion  that  this  was  a 
fair,  impartial,  and  equal  application  of  the  principle. '  '2 
As  though  to  make  reconciliation  with  the  ad 
ministration  impossible,  Douglas  went  on  to  express 
his  distrust  of  the  provision  of  the  bill  for  a  board  of 
supervisors  of  elections.  Instead  of  a  board  of  four, 
two  of  whom  should  represent  the  Territory  and  fwo 
the  Federal  government,  as  the  Crittenden  bill  had 
provided,  five  were  to  constitute  the  board,  of  whom 
three  were  to  be  United  States  officials.  "Does  not 
this  change,"  asked  Douglas  significantly,  "give 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1869. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1870. 


THE  REVOLT  OF  DOUGLAS        347 

ground  for  apprehension  that  you  may  have  the  Oxford, 
the  Shawnee,  and  the  Delaware  Crossing  and  Kicka- 
poo  frauds  re-enacted  at  this  election! >n  The  most 
suspicious  Eepublican  could  hardly  have  dealt  an  un- 
kinder  thrust. 

There  could  be  no  manner  of  doubt  as  to  the  out 
come  of  the  English  bill  in  the  Senate.  Douglas, 
Stuart,  and  Broderick  were  the  only  Democrats  to  op 
pose  its  passage,  Pugh  having  joined  the  majority. 
The  bill  passed  the  House  also,  nine  of  Douglas's  asso 
ciates  in  the  anti-Lecompton  fight  going  over  to  the 
administration.2  Douglas  accepted  this  defection  with 
philosophic  equanimity,  indulging  in  no  vindictive 
feelings.3  Had  he  not  himself  felt  misgivings  as  to  his 
own  course! 

By  midsummer  the  people  of  Kansas  had  recorded 
nearly  ten  thousand  votes  against  the  land  ordinance 
and  the  Lecompton  constitution.  The  administration 
had  failed  to  make  Kansas  a  slave  State.  Yet  the  Su 
preme  Court  had  countenanced  the  view  that  Kansas 
was  legally  a  slave  Territory.  What,  then,  became  of 
the  great  fundamental  principle  of  popular  sover 
eignty?  This  was  the  question  which  Douglas  was 
now  called  upon  to  answer. 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1870. 

2Khodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  IT,  p.  300. 

8  Cox,  Three  Decades  of  Federal  Legislation,  p.  58. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  JOINT  DEBATES  WITH  LINCOLN 

National  politics  made  strange  bed-fellows  in  the 
winter  of  1857-8.  Douglas  consorting  with  Republicans 
and  flouting  the  administration,  was  a  rare  spectacle. 
There  was  a  moment  in  this  odd  alliance  when  it  seemed 
likely  to  become  more  than  a  temporary  fusion  of  in 
terests.  The  need  of  concerted  action  brought  about 
frequent  conferences,  in  which  the  distrust  of  men  like 
Wilson  and  Colfax  was,  in  a  measure,  dispelled  by  the 
engaging  frankness  of  their  quondam  opponent.1 
Douglas  intimated  that  in  all  probability  he  could  not 
act  with  his  party  in  future.2  He  assured  Wilson  that 
he  was  in  the  fight  to  stay — in  his  own  words,  "he  had 
checked  his  baggage  and  taken  a  through  ticket.  "3 
There  was  an  odd  disposition,  too,  on  the  part  of  some 
Eepublicans  to  indorse  popular  sovereignty,  now  that  it 
seemed  likely  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territories.4 
There  was  even  a  rumor  afloat  that  the  editor  of  the 
New  York  Tribune  favored  Douglas  for  the  presi 
dency.5  On  at  least  two  occasions,  Greeley  was  in 
conference  with  Senator  Douglas  at  the  latter 's  resi 
dence.  To  the  gossiping  public  this  was  evidence 
enough  that  the  rumor  was  correct.  And  it  may  well 
be  that  Douglas  dallied  with  the  hope  that  a  great 

'Hollister,  Life  of  Colfax  pp.  119  ff;  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the 
Slave  Power,  II,  p.  567. 

2Hollister,  Colfax,  p.  121.  'Wilson,  p.  567. 

*  Bancroft,  Life  of  Seward,  I,  pp.  449-450. 
•Pike,  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War,  p.  403. 

S48 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  349 

Constitutional  Union  party  might  be  formed.1  But  he 
could  hardly  have  received  much  encouragement  from 
the  Eepublicans,  with  whom  he  was  consorting,  for  so 
far  from  losing  their  political  identity,  they  calculated 
upon  bringing  him  eventually  within  the  Eepublican 
fold.2 

A  Constitutional  Union  party,  embracing  Northern 
and  Southern  Unionists  of  Whig  or  Democratic  ante 
cedents,  might  have  supplied  the  gap  left  by  the  old 
Whig  party.  That  such  a  party  would  have  exercised 
a  profound  nationalizing  influence  can  scarcely  be 
doubted.  Events  might  have  put  Douglas  at  the  head 
of  such  a  party.  But,  in  truth,  such  an  outcome  of 
the  political  chaos  which  then  reigned,  was  a  remote 
possibility. 

The  matter  of  immediate  concern  to  Douglas  was 
the  probable  attitude  of  his  allies  toward  his  re-elec 
tion  to  the  Senate.  There  was  a  wide  divergence 
among  Eepublican  leaders ;  but  active  politicians  like 
Greeley  and  Wilson,  who  were  not  above  fighting  the 
devil  with  his  own  weapons,  counselled  their  Illinois 
brethren  not  to  oppose  his  return.3  There  was  no 
surer  way  to  disrupt  the  Democratic  party.  In  spite 
of  these  admonitions,  the  Eepublicans  of  Illinois  were 
bent  upon  defeating  Douglas.  He  had  been  too  un 
compromising  and  bitter  an  opponent  of  Trumbull  and 
other  " Black  Eepublicans"  to  win  their  confidence  by 
a  few  months  of  conflict  against  Lecomptonism.  "I 
see  his  tracks  all  over  our  State, "  wrote  the  editor  of 
the  Chicago  Tribune,  "they  point  only  in  one  direc 
tion  ;  not  a  single  toe  is  turned  toward  the  Eepublican 

1Hollister,  Colfax,  p.  119.     zlbid.,  p.  121. 

•Wilson,  II,  p    567;    Greeley,  Recollections  of  a  Busy  Life,  p.  397. 


350  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

camp.  Watch  him,  use  him,  but  do  not  trust  him — not 
an  inch."1  Moreover,  a  little  coterie  of  Springfield 
politicians  had  a  candidate  of  their  own  for  United 
States  senator  in  the  person  of  Abraham  Lincoln.2 

The  action  of  the  Democratic  State  convention  in 
April  closed  the  door  to  any  reconciliation  with  the 
Buchanan  administration.  Douglas  received  an  un 
qualified  indorsement.  The  Cincinnati  platform  was 
declared  to  be  "the  only  authoritative  exposition  of 
Democratic  doctrine."  No  power  on  earth  except  a 
similar  national  convention  had  a  right  * '  to  change  or 
interpolate  that  platform,  or  to  prescribe  new  or  dif 
ferent  tests."  By  sound  party  doctrine  the  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution  ought  to  be  "  submitted  to  the  direct 
vote  of  the  actual  inhabitants  of  Kansas  at  a  fair  elec 
tion."3  Could  any  words  have  been  more  explicit  I 
The  administration  responded  by  a  merciless  proscrip 
tion  of  Douglas  office-holders  and  by  unremitting  efforts 
to  create  an  opposition  ticket.  Under  pressure  from 
Washington,  conventions  were  held  to  nominate  candi 
dates  for  the  various  State  offices,  with  the  undisguised 
purpose  of  dividing  the  Democratic  vote  for  senator.4 

On  the  16th  of  June,  the  Eepublicans  of  Illinois 
threw  advice  to  the  winds  and  adopted  the  unusual 
course  of  naming  Lincoln  as  "the  first  and  only  choice 
of  the  Eepublicans  of  Illinois  for  the  United  States 
Senate."  It  was  an  act  of  immense  political  signifi 
cance.  Not  only  did  it  put  in  jeopardy  the  political 
life  of  Douglas,  but  it  ended  for  all  time  to  come  any 

'Hollister,  Colfax,  p.  120. 

2  Herndon-Weik,  Life  of  Lincoln,  II,  pp.  59  ff . 

8Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  394. 

*Foote,  Casket  of  Eeminiscences,  p.  135. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  351 

coalition  between  his  following  and  the  Eepublican 
party. 

The  subsequent  fame  of  Lincoln  has  irradiated  every 
phase  of  his  early  career.  To  his  contemporaries  in 
the  year  1858,  he  was  a  lawyer  of  recognized  ability,  an 
astute  politician,  and  a  frank  aspirant  for  national 
honors.  Those  who  imagine  him  to  have  been  an  un 
ambitious  soul,  upon  whom  honors  were  thrust,  fail  to 
understand  the  Lincoln  whom  Herndon,  his  partner, 
knew.  Lincoln  was  a  seasoned  politician.  He  had 
been  identified  with  the  old  Whig  organization ;  he  had 
repeatedly  represented  the  Springfield  district  in  the 
State  legislature ;  and  he  had  served  one  term  without 
distinction  in  Congress.  Upon  the  passage  of  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  Act  he  had  taken  an  active  part  in  fusing 
theTopposing  elements  into  the  Eepublican  party.  His 
services  to  the  new  party  made  him  a  candidate  for  the 
senatorship  in  1855,  and  received  recognition  in  the 
national  Eepublican  convention  of  1856,  when  he  was 
second  on  the  list  of  those  for  whom  the  convention 
balloted  for  Vice-President.  He  was  not  unknown  to 
Eepublicans  of  the  Northwest,  though  he  was  not  in 
any  sense  a  national  figure.  Few  men  had  a  keener 
insight  into  political  conditions  in  Illinois.  None  knew 
better  the  ins  and  outs  of  political  campaigning  in 
Illinois. 

Withal,  Lincoln  was  rated  as  a  man  of  integrity.  He 
had  strong  convictions  and  the  courage  of  his  convic 
tions.  His  generous  instincts  made  him  hate  slavery, 
while  his  antecedents  prevented  him  from  loving  the 
negro.  His  anti-slavery  sentiments  were  held  strongly 
in  check  by  his  sound  sense  of  justice.  He  had  the 
temperament  of  a  humanitarian  with  the  intellect  of 


352  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

a  lawyer.  While  not  combative  by  nature,  he  possessed 
the  characteristic  American  trait  of  measuring  himself 
by  the  attainments  of  others.  He  was  solicitous  to 
match  himself  with  other  men  so  as  to  prove  himself 
at  least  their  peer.  Possessed  of  a  cause  that  enlisted 
the  service  of  his  heart  as  well  as  his  head,  Lincoln 
was  a  strong  advocate  at  the  bar  and  a  formidable 
opponent  on  the  stump.  Douglas  bore  true  witness  to 
Lincoln's  powers  when  he  said,  on  hearing  of  his  nom 
ination,  "I  shall  have  my  hands  full.  He  is  the  strong 
man  of  his  party — full  of  wit,  facts,  dates — and  the 
best  stump  speaker,  with  his  droll  ways  and  dry  jokes, 
in  the  West.  He  is  as  honest  as  he  is  shrewd;  and  if 
1  beat  him,  my  victory  will  be  hardly  won. ' n 

The  nomination  of  Lincoln  was  so  little  a  matter  of 
surprise  to  him  and  his  friends,  that  at  the  close  of  the 
convention  he  was  able  to  address  the  delegates  in  a 
carefully  prepared  speech.  Wishing  to  sound  a  domi 
nant  note  for  the  campaign,  he  began  with  these  mem 
orable  words: 

"If  we  could  first  know  where  we  are,  and  whither 
we  are  tending,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  do  and 
how  to  do  it.  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year,  since 
a  policy  was  initiated  with  the  avowed  object,  and  con 
fident  promise,  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation. 
Under  the  operation  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has 
not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented.  In 
my  opinion,  it  will  not  cease,  until  a  crisis  shall  have 
been  reached  and  passed.  'A  house  divided  against 
itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  government  can 
not  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do 
not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved — I  do  not  expect 

1  Forney,  Anecdotes,  II,  p.  179. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  353 

the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be 
divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other. 
Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further 
spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall 
rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward,  till 
it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as 
well  as  new — North  as  well  as  South."1 

All  evidence,  continued  Lincoln,  pointed  to  a  design 
to  make  slavery  national.  The  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  ^  / 
the  popular  indorsement  of  Buchanan,  and  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  were  so  many  parts  of  a  plot.  Only 
one  part  was  lacking;  viz.  another  decision  declaring 
it  unconstitutional  for  a  State  to  exclude  slavery. 
Then  the  fabric  would  be  complete  for  which  Stephen, 
Franklin,  Eoger,  and  James  had  each  wrought  his 
separate  piece  with  artful  cunning.  It  was  impossible 
not  to  believe  that  these  Democratic  leaders  had 
labored  in  concert.  To  those  who  had  urged  that 
Douglas  should  be  supported,  Lincoln  had  only  this 
to  say:  Douglas  could  not  oppose  the  advance  of 
slavery,  for  he  did  not  care  whether  slavery  was  voted 
up  or  down.  His  avowed  purpose  was  to  make  the 
people  care  nothing  about  slavery.  The  Eepublican 
cause  must  not  be  intrusted  to  its  adventitious  allies, 
but  to  its  undoubted  friends. 

A  welcome  that  was  truly  royal  awaited  Douglas  in 
Chicago.  On  his  way  thither,  he  was  met  by  a  delega 
tion  which  took  him  a  willing  captive  and  conducted 
him  on  a  special  train  to  his  destination.  Along  the 
route  there  was  every  sign  of  popular  enthusiasm. 
He  entered  the  city  amid  the  booming  of  cannon;  he 

1  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates  (Edition  of  1860),  p.  1. 
23 


354  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

was  conveyed  to  his  hotel  in  a  carriage  drawn  by  six 
horses,  under  military  escort ;  banners  with  flattering 
inscriptions  fluttered  above  his  head;  from  balconies 
and  windows  he  heard  the  shouts  of  thousands.1 

Even  more  flattering  if  possible  was  the  immense 
crowd  that  thronged  around  the  Tremont  House  in  the 
early  evening  to  hear  his  promised  speech.  Not  only 
the  area  in  front  of  the  hotel,  but  the  adjoining  streets 
were  crowded.  Illuminations  and  fireworks  cast  a 
lurid  light  on  the  faces  which  were  upturned  to  greet 
the  "Defender  of  Popular  Sovereignty, "  as  he  ap 
peared  upon  the  balcony.  A  man  of  far  less  vanity 
would  have  been  moved  by  the  scene.  Just  behind  the 
speaker  but  within  the  house,  Lincoln  was  an  attentive 
listener.2  The  presence  of  his  rival  put  Douglas  on 
his  mettle.  He  took  in  good  part  a  rather  discourteous 
interruption  by  Lincoln,  and  referred  to  him  in  gener 
ous  terms,  as  "a  kind,  amiable,  and  intelligent  gentle 
man,  a  good  citizen,  and  an  honorable  opponent."3 

The  address  was  in  a  somewhat  egotistical  vein — 
pardonably  egotistical,  considering  the  extraordinary 
circumstances.  Douglas  could  not  refrain  from  refer 
ring  to  his  career  since  he  had  confronted  that  excited 
crowd  in  Chicago  eight  years  before,  in  defense  of  the 
compromise  measures.  To  his  mind  the  events  of  those 
eight  years  had  amply  vindicated  the  great  principle 
of  popular  sovereignty.  Knowing  that  he  was  in  a 
Eepublican  stronghold,  he  dwelt  with  particular  com 
placency  upon  the  manful  way  in  which  the  Eepub 
lican  party  had  come  to  the  support  of  that  principle, 

1  Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  398-400. 

2  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  400 ;    Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Life 
of  Lincoln5  II,  p.  93.  3  Debates,  p.  9. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  355 

in  the  recent  anti-Lecompton  fight.  It  was  this  funda 
mental  right  of  self-government  that  he  had  cham 
pioned  through  good  and  ill  report,  all  these  years. 
It  was  this,  and  this  alone,  which  had  governed  his 
action  in  regard  to  the  Lecompton  fraud.  It  was  not 
because  the  Lecompton  constitution  was  a  slave  con 
stitution,  but  because  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of 
the  people  of  Kansas  that  he  had  condemned  it. 
"Whenever,"  said  he,  "you  put  a  limitation  upon  the 
right  of  a  people  to  decide  what  laws  they  want,  you 
have  destroyed  the  fundamental  principle  of  self-gov 
ernment.  ' ' 

With  Lincoln's  house-divided-against-itself  propo 
sition,  he  took  issue  unqualifiedly.  "Mr.  Lincoln  as 
serts,  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  this  government, 
that  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  local  laws  and 
domestic  institutions  of  each  and  all  the  States  of  the 
Union,  and  he  therefore  invites  all  the  non-slavehold- 
ing  States  to  band  together,  organize  as  one  body,  and 
make  war  upon  slavery  in  Kentucky,  upon  slavery  in 
Virginia,  upon  slavery  in  the  Carolinas,  upon  slavery 
in  all  of  the  slave-holding  States  in  this  Union,  and 
to  persevere  in  that  war  until  it  shall  be  exterminated. 
He  then  notifies  the  slave-holding  States  to  stand 
together  as  a  unit  and  make  an  aggressive  war  upon 
the  free  States  of  this  Union  with  a  view  of  establish 
ing  slavery  in  them  all ;  of  forcing  it  upon  Illinois,  of 
forcing  it  upon  New  York,  upon  New  England,  and 
upon  every  other  free  State,  and  that  they  shall  keep 
up  the  warfare  until  it  has  been  formally  established 
in  them  all.  In  other  words,  Mr.  Lincoln  advocates 
boldly  and  clearly  a  war  of  sections,  a  war  of  the  North 
against  the  South,  of  the  free  States  against  the  slave 


356  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

States — a  war  of  extermination — to  be  continued  re 
lentlessly  until  the  one  or  the  other  shall  be  subdued, 
and  all  the  States  shall  either  become  free  or  become 
slave.  "J 

But  such  uniformity  in  local  institutions  would  be 
possible  only  by  blotting  out  State  Sovereignty,  by 
merging  all  the  States  in  one  consolidated  empire,  and 
by  vesting  Congress  with  plenary  power  to  make  all 
the  police  regulations,  domestic  and  local  laws,  uni 
form  throughout  the  Eepublic.  The  framers  of  our 
government  knew  well  enough  that  differences  in  soil, 
in  products,  and  in  interests,  required  different  local 
and  domestic  regulations  in  each  locality;  and  they 
organized  the  Federal  government  on  this  funda 
mental  assumption.2 

With  Lincoln's  other  proposition  Douglas  also  took 
issue.  He  refused  to  enter  upon  any  crusade  against 
the  Supreme  Court.  "I  do  not  choose,  therefore,  to  go 
into  any  argument  with  Mr.  Lincoln  in  reviewing  the 
various  decisions  which  the  Supreme  Court  has  made, 
either  upon  the  Dred  Scott  case,  or  any  other.  I  have 
no  idea  of  appealing  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  upon  a  constitutional  question  to  the  decision 
of  a  tumultuous  town  meeting."3 

Neither  could  Douglas  agree  with  his  opponent  in 
objecting  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  be 
cause  it  deprived  the  negro  of  the  rights,  privileges, 
and  immunities  of  citizenship,  which  pertained  only  to 
the  white  race.  Our  government  was  founded  on  a 
white  basis.  "It  was  made  by  the  white  man,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  white  man,  to  be  administered  by  white 
men."  To  be  sure,  a  negro,  an  Indian,  or  any  other 

1  Debates,  p.  9.  2  Ibid.,  p.  10.  » Ibid.,  p.  11. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  357 

man  of  inferior  race  should  be  permitted  to  enjoy  all 
the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  consistent  with 
the  safety  of  society;  but  each  State  should  decide  for 
itself  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  rights. 

On  the  next  evening,  Kepublican  Chicago  greeted 
its  protagonist  with  much  the  same  demonstrations,  as 
he  took  his  place  on  the  balcony  from  which  Douglas 
had  spoken.  Lincoln  found  the  flaw  in  Douglas's 
armor  at  the  outset.  "Popular  sovereignty!  Everlast 
ing  popular  sovereignty!  What  is  popular  sover 
eign  ty"?  How  could  there  be  such  a  thing  in  the 
original  sense,  now  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  de 
cided  that  the  people  in  their  territorial  status  might 
not  prohibit  slavery?  And  as  for  the  right  of  the 
people  to  frame  a  constitution,  who  had  ever  disputed 
that  right?  But  Lincoln,  evidently  troubled  by  Doug 
las's  vehement  deductions  from  the  house-divided- 
against-itself  proposition,  soon  fell  back  upon  the 
defensive,  where  he  was  at  a  great  disadvantage.  He 
was  forced  to  explain  that  he  did  not  favor  a  war  by 
the  North  upon  the  South  for  the  extinction  of  slavery ; 
nor  a  war  by  the  South  upon  the  North  for  the  national 
ization  of  slavery.  "I  only  said  what  I  expected 
would  take  place.  I  made  a  prediction  only, — it  may 
have  been  a  foolish  one,  perhaps.  I  did  not  even  say 
that  I  desired  that  slavery  should  be  put  in  course  of 
ultimate  extinction.  I  do  say  so  now,  however."1  He 
believed  that  slavery  had  endured,  because  until  the 
Nebraska  Act  the  public  mind  had  rested  in  the  con 
viction  that  slavery  would  ultimately  disappear.  In 
affirming  that  the  opponents  of  slavery  would  arrest 
its  further  extension,  he  only  meant  to  say  that  they 

1  Debates,  p.  18. 


358  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

would  put  it  where  the  fathers  originally  placed  it. 
He  was  not  in  favor  of  interfering  with  slavery  where 
it  existed  in  the  States.  As  to  the  charge  that  he  was 
inviting  people  to  resist  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  Lin 
coln  responded  rather  weakly — again  laying  himself 
open  to  attack — "We  mean  to  do  what  we  can  to  have 
the  court  decide  the  other  way."1 

Lincoln  also  betrayed  his  fear  lest  Douglas  should 
draw  Eepublican  votes.  Knowing  the  strong  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  of  the  region,  he  asked  when  Doug 
las  had  shown  anything  but  indifference  on  the  subject 
of  slavery.  Away  with  this  quibbling  about  inferior 
races!  "Let  us  discard  all  these  things  and  unite  as 
one  people  throughout  this  land,  until  we  shall  once 
more  stand  up  declaring  that  all  men  are  created 
equal."2 

From  Chicago  Douglas  journeyed  like  a  conquering 
hero  to  Bloomington.  At  every  station  crowds  gath 
ered  to  see  his  gaily  decorated  train  and  to  catch  a 
glimpse  of  the  famous  senator.  A  platform  car  bear 
ing  a  twelve-pound  gun  was  attached  to  the  train  and 
everywhere  "popular  sovereignty,"  as  the  cannon  was 
dubbed,  heralded  his  arrival.3  On  the  evening  of  July 
16th  he  addressed  a  large  gathering  in  the  open  air; 
and  again  he  had  among  his  auditors,  Abraham  Lin 
coln,  who  was  hot  upon  his  trail.4  The  county  and 
district  in  which  Bloomington  was  situated  had  once 
been  strongly  Whig ;  but  was  now  as  strongly  Repub 
lican.  With  the  local  conditions  in  mind,  Douglas  made 
an  artful  plea  for  support.  He  gratefully  acknowl- 

1  Debates,  p.  20.  2  Ibid.,  p.  24. 

3  Flint,  Douglas,  pp.  114-117;    Chicago  Times,  July  18,  1858. 

4  Debates,  p.  24. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  359 

edged  the  aid  of  the  Republicans  in  the  recent  anti- 
Lecompton  fight,  and  of  that  worthy  successor  of  the 
immortal  Clay,  John  J.  Crittenden  of  Kentucky.  After 
all,  was  it  not  a  common  principle  for  which  they  had 
been  contending?  "My  friends,"  said  Douglas  with 
engaging  ingenuousness,  "when  I  am  battling  for  a 
great  principle,  I  want  aid  and  support  from  whatever 
quarter  I  can  get  it. ' '  Pity,  then,  that  Republican  poli- 
ticians,  in  order  to  defeat  him,  should  form  an  alliance 
with  Lecompton  men  and  thus  betray  the  cause!1 

Douglas  called  attention  to  Lincoln's  explanation 
of  his  house-divided-against-itself  argument.  It  still 
seemed  to  him  to  invite  a  war  of  sections.  Mr.  Lincoln 
had  said  that  he  had  no  wish  to  see  the  people  enter 
into  the  Southern  States  and  interfere  with  slavery: 
for  his  part,  he  was  equally  opposed  to  a  sectional 
agitation  to  control  the  institutions  of  other  States.2 
Again,  Mr.  Lincoln  had  said  that  he  proposed,  so  far 
as  in  him  lay,  to  secure  a  reversal  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision.  How,  asked  Douglas,  will  he  accomplish 
this?  There  can  be  but  one  way:  elect  a  Republican 
President  who  will  pack  the  bench  with  Republican 
justices.  Would  a  court  so  constituted  command 
respect?3 

As  to  the  effect  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  upon  slav 
ery  in  the  Territories,  Douglas  had  only  this  to  say: 
"With  or  without  that  decision,  slavery  will  go  just 
where  the  people  want  it,  and  not  one  inch  further." 
"Hence,  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery, 
they  will  encourage  it  by  passing  affirmatory  laws, 
and  the  necessary  police  regulations,  patrol  laws,  and 
slave  code;  if  they  do  not  want  it  they  will  withhold 

1  Debates,  p.  27.  2  76*d.,  p.  30.  9Ibid.,  pp.  33-34. 


360  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

that  legislation,  and  by  withholding  it  slavery  is  as 
dead  as  if  it  was  prohibited  by  a  constitutional  pro 
hibition,  especially  if,  in  addition,  their  legislation 
is  unfriendly,  as  it  would  be  if  they  were  opposed  to 
it.  They  could  pass  such  local  laws  and  police  regu 
lations  as  would  drive  slavery  out  in  one  day,  or  one 
hour,  if  they  were  opposed  to  it,  and  therefore,  so 
far  as  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories 
is  concerned,  so  far  as  the  principle  of  popular  sover 
eignty  is  concerned,  in  its  practical  operation,  it  mat 
ters  not  how  the  Dred  Scott  case  may  be  decided  with 
reference  to  the  Territories."1 

The  closing  words  of  the  speech  approached  danger 
ously  near  to  bathos.  Douglas  pictured  himself  stand 
ing  beside  the  deathbed  of  Clay  and  pledging  his  life 
to  the  advocacy  of  the  great  principle  expressed  in 
the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  later  in  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act.  Strangely  enough  he  had 
given  the  same  pledge  to  "the  god-like  Webster."2 
This  filial  reverence  for  Clay  and  Webster,  whom 
Douglas  had  fought  with  all  the  weapons  of  partisan 
warfare,  must  have  puzzled  those  Whigs  in  his  audi 
ence  who  were  guileless  enough  to  accept  such  state 
ments  at  their  face  value. 

Devoted  partisans  accompanied  Douglas  to  Spring 
field,  on  the  following  day.  In  spite  of  the  frequent 
downpours  of  rain  and  the  sultry  atmosphere,  their 
enthusiasm  never  once  flagged.  On  board  the  same 
train,  surrounded  by  good-natured  enemies,  was  Lin 
coln,  who  was  also  to  speak  at  the  capital.3  Douglas 
again  found  a  crowd  awaiting  him.  He  had  much  the 

Debates,  p.  35.  zTbld.,  p.  39. 

•  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  417;    Chicago  Times,  July  21,  1858. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  361 

same  things  to  say.  Perhaps  his  arraignment  of  Lin 
coln's  policy  was  somewhat  more  severe,  but  he  turned 
the  edges  of  his  thrusts  by  a  courteous  reference  to 
his  opponent,  "with  whom  he  anticipated  no  personal 
collision."  For  the  first  time  he  alluded  to  Lincoln's 
charge  of  conspiracy,  but  only  to  remark  casually,  "If 
Mr.  Lincoln  deems  me  a  conspirator  of  that  kind,  all 
I  have  to  say  is  that  I  do  not  think  so  badly  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  the  highest  judicial  tri 
bunal  on  earth,  as  to  believe  that  they  were  capable 
in  their  actions  and  decision  of  entering  into  political 
intrigues  for  partisan  purposes."1 

Meantime  Lincoln,  addressing  a  Republican  audi 
ence,  was  relating  his  recent  experiences  in  the  enemy's 
camp.  Believing  that  he  had  discovered  the  line  of  at 
tack,  he  sought  to  fortify  his  position.  He  did  not  con 
template  the  abolition  of  State  legislatures,  nor  any 
such  radical  policy,  any  more  than  the  fathers  of  the 
Republic  did,  when  they  sought  to  check  the  spread  of 
slavery  by  prohibiting  it  in  the  Territories.2  He  did 
not  propose  to  resist  the  Dred  Scott  decision  except 
as  a  rule  of  political  action.3  Here  in  Sangamon 
County,  he  was  somewhat  less  insistent  upon  negro 
equality.  The  negro  was  not  the  equal  of  the  white 
man  in  all  respects,  to  be  sure;  "still,  in  the  right  to 
put  into  his  mouth  the  bread  that  his  own  hands  have 
earned,  he  is  the  equal  of  every  other  man,  white  or 
black."4 

As  matters  stood,  Douglas  had  the  advantage  of 
Lincoln,  since  with  his  national  prominence  and  his 

Debates,  p.  44.  *lUd.,  p.  60. 

8 /bid.,  p.  61.  */6id.,  p.  63. 


362  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

great  popularity,  he  was  always  sure  of  an  audience, 
and  could  reply  as  he  chose  to  the  attacks  of  his  an 
tagonist.  Lincoln  felt  that  he  must  come  to  close  terms 
with  Douglas  and  extort  from  him  admissions  which 
would  discredit  him  with  Eepublicans.  With  this  end 
in  view,  Lincoln  suggested  that  they  "  divide  time,  and 
address  the  same  audiences  the  present  canvass."1  It 
was  obviously  to  Douglas's  interest  to  continue  the 
campaign  as  he  had  begun.  He  had  already  mapped 
out  an  extensive  itinerary.  He  therefore  replied  that 
he  could  not  agree  to  such  an  arrangement,  owing  to 
appointments  already  made  and  to  the  possibility  of 
a  third  candidate  with  whom  Lincoln  might  make 
common  cause.  He  intimated,  rather  unfairly,  that 
Lincoln  had  purposely  waited  until  he  was  already 
bound  by  his  appointments.  However,  he  would  accede 
to  the  proposal  so  far  as  to  meet  Lincoln  in  a  joint 
discussion  in  each  congressional  district  except  the 
second  and  sixth,  in  which  both  had  already  spoken.2 

It  was  not  such  a  letter  as  one  would  expect  from  a 
generous  opponent.  But  politics  was  no  pastime  to 
the  writer.  He  was  sparring  now  in  deadly  earnest, 
for  every  advantage.  Not  unnaturally  Lincoln  re 
sented  the  imputation  of  unfairness ;  but  he  agreed  to 
the  proposal  of  seven  joint  debates.  Douglas  then 
named  the  times  and  places;  and  Lincoln  agreed  to 
the  terms,  rather  grudgingly,  for  he  would  have  but 
three  openings  and  closings  to  Douglas's  four.3  Still, 
as  he  had  followed  Douglas  in  Chicago,  he  had  no 
reason  to  complain. 

The  next  three  months  may  be  regarded  as  a  pro 
longed  debate,  accentuated  by  the  seven  joint  discus- 

1  Debates,  p.  64.  -  Ibid.,  pp.  64-65.         » lUd.,  p.  66. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  363 

sions.  The  rival  candidates  traversed  much  the  same 
territory,  and  addressed  much  the  same  audiences  on 
successive  days.  At  times,  chance  made  them  fellow- 
passengers  on  the  same  train  or  steamboat.  Douglas 
had  already  begun  his  itinerary,  when  Lincoln's  last 
note  reached  him  in  Piatt  County.1  He  had  just  spoken 
at  Clinton,  in  De  Witt  County,  and  again  he  had  found 
Lincoln  in  the  audience. 

No  general  ever  planned  a  military  campaign  with 
greater  regard  to  the  topography  of  the  enemy's  coun 
try,  than  Douglas  plotted  his  campaign  in  central  Illi 
nois.  For  it  was  in  the  central  counties  that  the  election 
was  to  be  won  or  lost.  The  Eepublican  strength  lay  in 
the  upper,  northern  third  of  the  State ;  the  Democratic 
strength,  in  the  southern  third.  The  doubtful  area 
lay  between  Ottawa  on  the  north  and  Belleville  on  the 
south;  Oquawka  on  the  northwest  and  Paris  on  the 
east.  Only  twice  did  Douglas  make  any  extended  tour 
outside  this  area:  once  to  meet  his  appointment  with 
Lincoln  at  Freeport;  and  once  to  engage  in  the  third 
joint  debate  at  Jonesboro. 

The  first  week  in  August  found  Douglas  speaking 
at  various  points  along  the  Illinois  Eiver  to  enthusi 
astic  crowds.  Lincoln  followed  closely  after,  bent  upon 
weakening  the  force  of  his  opponent's  arguments  by 
lodging  an  immediate  demurrer  against  them.  On  the 
whole,  Douglas  drew  the  larger  crowds;  but  it  was 
observed  that  Lincoln's  audiences  increased  as  he  pro 
ceeded  northward.  Ottawa  was  the  objective  point 
for  both  travelers,  for  there  was  to  be  held  the  first 
joint  debate  on  August  21st. 

An  enormous  crowd  awaited  them.     From  sunrise 

1  Debates,  p.  66. 


364  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

to  mid-day  men,  women,  and  children  had  poured  into 
town,  in  every  sort  of  conveyance.  It  was  a  typical 
midsummer  day  in  Illinois.  The  prairie  roads  were 
thoroughly  baked  by  the  sun,  and  the  dust  rose,  like 
a  fine  powder,  from  beneath  the  feet  of  horses  and 
pedestrians,  enveloping  all  in  blinding  clouds.  A  train 
of  seventeen  cars  had  brought  ardent  supporters  of 
Douglas  from  Chicago.  The  town  was  gaily  decked; 
the  booming  of  cannon  resounded  across  the  prairie; 
bands  of  music  added  to  the  excitement  of  the  occasion. 
The  speakers  were  escorted  to  the  public  square  by 
two  huge  processions.  So  eager  was  the  crowd  that 
it  was  with  much  difficulty,  and  no  little  delay,  that 
Lincoln  and  Douglas,  the  committee  men,  and  the  re 
porters,  were  landed  on  the  platform.1 

For  the  first  time  in  the  campaign,  the  rival  candi 
dates  were  placed  side  by  side.  The  crowd  instinctively 
took  its  measure  of  the  two  men.  They  presented 
a  striking  contrast:2  Lincoln,  tall,  angular,  and 
long  of  limb;  Douglas,  short,  almost  dwarfed  by 
comparison,  broad-shouldered  and  thick-chested.  Lin 
coln  was  clad  in  a  frock  coat  of  rusty  black,  which 
was  evidently  not  made  for  his  lank,  ungainly  body. 
His  sleeves  did  not  reach  his  wrists  by  several  inches, 
and  his  trousers  failed  to  conceal  his  huge  feet.  His 
long,  sinewy  neck  emerged  from  a  white  collar,  drawn 
over  a  black  tie.  Altogether,  his  appearance  bordered 
upon  the  grotesque,  and  would  have  provoked  mirth  in 
any  other  than  an  Illinois  audience,  which  knew  and 

1Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  pp.  104-105. 

8  For  the  following  description  I  have  drawn  freely  from  the  narra 
tives  of  eye-witnesses.  I  am  particularly  indebted  to  the  graphic  ac 
count  by  Mr.  Carl  Schurz  in  McClure's  Magazine,  January,  1907. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  365 

respected  the  man  too  well  to  mark  his  costume* 
Douglas,  on  the  contrary,  presented  a  well-groomed 
figure.  He  wore  a  well-fitting  suit  of  broadcloth;  his 
linen  was  immaculate;  and  altogether  he  had  the  ap 
pearance  of  a  man  of  the  world  whom  fortune  had 
favored. 

The  eyes  of  the  crowd,  however,  sought  rather  the 
faces  of  the  rival  candidates.  Lincoln  looked  down 
upon  them  with  eyes  in  which  there  was  an  expression 
of  sadness,  not  to  say  melancholy,  until  he  lost  himself 
in  the  passion  of  his  utterance.  There  was  not  a 
regular  feature  in  his  face.  The  deep  furrows  that 
seamed  his  countenance  bore  unmistakable  witness  to 
a  boyhood  of  grim  poverty  and  grinding  toil.  Douglas 
surveyed  the  crowd  from  beneath  his  shaggy  brows, 
with  bold,  penetrating  gaze.  Every  feature  of  his  face 
bespoke  power.  The  deep-set  eyes ;  the  dark,  almost 
sinister,  line  between  them ;  the  mouth  with  its  tightly- 
drawn  lips ;  the  deep  lines  on  his  somewhat  puffy  cheeks 
— all  gave  the  impression  of  a  masterful  nature,  accus 
tomed  to  bear  down  opposition.  As  men  observed  his 
massive  brow  with  its  mane  of  abundant,  dark  hair; 
his  strong  neck;  his  short,  compact  body;  they  in 
stinctively  felt  that  here  was  a  personality  not  lightly 
to  be  encountered.  He  was  "the  very  embodiment  of 
force,  combativeness,  and  staying  power."1 

When  Douglas,  by  agreement,  opened  the  debate, 
he  was  fully  conscious  that  he  was  addressing  an 
audience  which  was  in  the  main  hostile  to  him.  With 
the  instinct  of  a  born  stump  speaker,  he  sought  first 
to  find  common  ground  with  his  hearers.  Appealing 
to  the  history  of  parties,  he  pointed  out  the  practical 

1Mr.  Schurz  in  McClure's,  January,  1907. 


366  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

agreement  of  both  Whig  and  Democratic  parties  on 
the  slavery  question  down  to  1854.  It  was  when,  in 
accordance  with  the  Compromise  of  1850,  he  brought 
in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  that  Lincoln  and  Trum- 
bull  entered  into  an  agreement  to  dissolve  the  old 
parties  in  Illinois  and  to  form  an  Abolition  party  under 
the  pseudonym  "Bepublican."  The  terms  of  the  alli 
ance  were  that  Lincoln  should  have  Senator  Shields' 
place  in  the  Senate,  and  that  Trumbull  should  have 
Douglas's,  when  his  term  should  expire.1  History, 
thus  interpreted,  made  not  Douglas,  but  his  opponent, 
the  real  agitator  in  State  politics. 

Douglas  then  read  from  the  first  platform  of  the 
Black  Eepublicans.  "My  object  in  reading  these  reso 
lutions,"  he  said,  "was  to  put  the  question  to  Abraham 
Lincoln  this  day,  whether  he  now  stands  and  will  stand 
by  each  article  in  that  creed  and  carry  it  out.  I  desire 
to  know  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  to-day  stands,  as  he  did 
in  1854,  in  favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law.  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether 
he  stands  pledged  to-day,  as  he  did  in  1854,  against  the 
admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union, 
even  if  the  people  want  them.  I  want  to  know  whether 
he  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  a  new  State 
into  the  Union  with  such  a  Constitution  as  the  people 
of  that  State  may  see  fit  to  make.  I  want  to  know 
whether  he  stands  to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I  desire  him  to 
answer  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  the  prohibition 
of  the  slave  trade  between  the  different  States.  I  de 
sire  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  prohibit 
slavery  in  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States, 

1  Debates,  p.  67. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  367 

North  as  well  as  South  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line.  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  is  opposed  to 
the  acquisition  of  any  more  territory,  unless  slavery 
is  prohibited  therein. >n 

In  all  this  there  was  a  rude  vehemence  and  coarse 
insinuation  that  was  regrettable ;  yet  Douglas  sought 
to  soften  the  asperity  of  his  manner,  by  adding  that 
he  did  not  mean  to  be  disrespectful  or  unkind  to  Mr. 
Lincoln.  He  had  known  Mr.  Lincoln  for  twenty-five 
years.  While  he  was  a  school-teacher,  Lincoln  was  a 
flourishing  grocery-keeper.  Lincoln  was  always  more 
successful  in  business ;  Lincoln  always  did  well  what 
ever  he  undertook ;  Lincoln  could  beat  any  of  the  boys 
wrestling  or  running  a  foot-race;  Lincoln  could  ruin 
more  liquor  than  all  the  boys  of  the  town  together. 
When  in  Congress,  Lincoln  had  distinguished  himself 
by  his  opposition  to  the  Mexican  War,  taking  the  side 
of  the  enemy  against  his  own  country.2  If  this  dis 
paragement  of  an  opponent  seems  mean  and  ungener 
ous,  let  it  be  remembered  that  in  the  rough  give-and- 
take  of  Illinois  politics,  hard  hitting  was  to  be  expected. 
Lincoln  had  invited  counter-blows  by  first  charging 
Douglas  with  conspiracy.  No  mere  reading  of  cold 
print  can  convey  the  virile  energy  with  which  Douglas 
spoke.  The  facial  expression,  the  animated  gesture, 
the  toss  of  the  head,  and  the  stamp  of  the  foot,  the  full, 
resonant  voice — all  are  wanting. 

To  a  man  of  Lincoln's  temperament,  this  vigorous 
invective  was  indescribably  irritating.  Rather  un 
wisely  he  betrayed  his  vexation  in  his  first  words.  His 
manner  was  constrained.  He  seemed  awkward  and  ill 
at  ease,  but  as  he  warmed  to  his  task,  his  face  became 

Debates,  p.  68.  2  Ibid.,  p.  69. 


368  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

more  animated,  he  recovered  the  use  of  his  arms,  and 
he  pointed  his  remarks  with  forceful  gestures.  His 
voice,  never  pleasant,  rose  to  a  shrill  treble  in  moments 
of  excitement.  After  the  familiar  manner  of  Western 
speakers  of  that  day,  he  was  wont  to  bend  his  knees 
and  then  rise  to  his  full  height  with  a  jerk,  to  enforce 
some  point.1  Yet  with  all  his  ungraceful  mannerisms, 
Lincoln  held  his  hearers,  impressing  most  men  with 
a  sense  of  the  honesty  of  his  convictions. 

Instead  of  replying  categorically  to  Douglas's  ques 
tions,  Lincoln  read  a  long  extract  from  a  speech  which 
he  had  made  in  1854,  to  show  his  attitude  then  toward 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.  He  denied  that  he  had  had 
anything  to  do  with  the  resolutions  which  had  been 
read.  He  believed  that  he  was  not  even  in  Springfield 
at  the  time  when  they  were  adopted.2  As  for  the 
charge  that  he  favored  the  social  and  political  equality 
of  the  black  and  white  races,  he  said,  "Anything  that 
argues  me  into  his  idea  of  perfect  social  and  political 
equality  with  the  negro,  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastic 
arrangement  of  words,  by  which  a  man  can  prove  a 
horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  .  .  .1  have  no 
purpose  to  introduce  political  and  social  equality  be 
tween  the  white  and  the  black  races.  There  is  a 
physical  difference  between  the  two,  which,  in  my  judg 
ment,  will  probably  forever  forbid  their  living  together 
upon  the  footing  of  perfect  equality  ....  notwithstand 
ing  all  this,  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the 
negro  is  not  entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights  enu 
merated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, — the 

1Herndon    in    Herndon-Weik,    Lincoln,    II,    pp.    76-77;    Mr.    Carl 
Schurz  in  McClure's,  January,  1907. 
"Debates,  p.  73. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  369 

right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."1 
Slavery  had  always  been,  and  would  always  be,  "an 
apple  of  discord  and  an  element  of  division  in  the 
house."  He  disclaimed  all  intention  of  making  war 
upon  Southern  institutions,  yet  he  was  still  firm  in  the 
belief  that  the  public  mind  would  not  be  easy  until 
slavery  was  put  where  the  fathers  left  it.  He  reminded 
his  hearers  that  Douglas  had  said  nothing  to  clear  him 
self  from  the  suspicion  of  having  been  party  to  a  con 
spiracy  to  nationalize  slavery.  Judge  Douglas  was 
not  always  so  ready  as  now  to  yield  obedience  to  ju 
dicial  decisions,  as  anyone  might  see  who  chose  to 
inquire  how  he  earned  his  title.2 

In  his  reply,  Douglas  endeavored  to  refresh  Lincoln's 
memory  in  respect  to  the  resolutions.  They  were 
adopted  while  he  was  in  Springfield,  for  it  was  the 
season  of  the  State  Fair,  when  both  had  spoken  at  the 
Capitol.  He  had  not  charged  Mr.  Lincoln  with  having 
helped  to  frame  these  resolutions,  but  with  having 
been  a  responsible  leader  of  the  party  which  had 
adopted  them  as  its  platform.  Was  Mr.  Lincoln  try 
ing  to  dodge  the  questions?  Douglas  refused  to  allow 
himself  to  be  put  upon  the  defensive  in  the  matter  of 
the  alleged  conspiracy,  since  Lincoln  had  acknowledged 
that  he  did  not  know  it  to  be  true.  He  would  brand  it 
as  a  lie  and  let  Lincoln  prove  it  if  he  could.3 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  debate,  two  young  farmers, 
in  their  exuberant  enthusiasm,  rushed  forward,  seized 
Lincoln  in  spite  of  his  remonstrances,  and  carried  him 
off  upon  their  stalwart  shoulders.  "It  was  really  a 


1  Debates,  p.  75. 
*Il>id.,  p.  82. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  86. 
24 


370  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

ludicrous  sight, "  writes  an  eye-witness,1  "to  see  the 
grotesque  figure  holding  frantically  to  the  heads  of 
his  supporters,  with  his  legs  dangling  from  their 
shoulders,  and  his  pantaloons  pulled  up  so  as  to  expose 
his  underwear  almost  to  his  knees. "  Douglas  was  not 
slow  in  using  this  incident  to  the  discomfiture  of  his 
opponent.  "Why,"  he  said  at  Joliet,  "the  very  notice 
that  I  was  going  to  take  him  down  to  Egypt  made  him 
tremble  in  his  knees  so  that  he  had  to  be  carried  from 
the  platform.  He  laid  up  seven  days,  and  in  the  mean 
time  held  a  consultation  with  his  political  physicians,"2 
etc.  Strangely  enough,  Lincoln  with  all  his  sense  of 
humor  took  this  badinage  seriously,  and  accused  Doug 
las  of  telling  a  falsehood.3 

The  impression  prevailed  that  Douglas  had  cornered 
Lincoln  by  his  adroit  use  of  the  Springfield  resolutions 
of  1854.  Within  a  week,  however,  an  editorial  in  the 
Chicago  Press  and  Tribune  reversed  the  popular  ver 
dict,  by  pronouncing  the  resolutions  a  forgery.  The 
Republicans  were  jubilant.  "The  Little  Dodger"  had 
cornered  himself.  The  Democrats  were  chagrined. 
Douglas  was  thoroughly  nonplussed.  He  had  written 
to  Lanphier  for  precise  information  regarding  these 
resolutions,  and  he  had  placed  implicit  confidence  in 
the  reply  of  his  friend.  It  now  transpired  that  they 
were  the  work  of  a  local  convention  in  Kane  County.4 
Could  any  blunder  have  been  more  unfortunate? 

When  the  contestants  met  at  Freeport,  far  in  the 

1  Henry  Villard,  Memoirs,  I,  p.  93;    Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon- 
Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  p.  108. 

2  Debates,  p.  129.  8  lUd.,  p.  130. 

*  Holland,  Lincoln,  p.  185;  Tarbell,  Lincoln,  Mcdure's  Magazine, 
VII,  pp.  408-409. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  371 

solid  Bepublican  counties  of  the  North,  Lincoln  was 
ready  with  his  answers  to  the  questions  propounded 
by  Douglas  at  Ottawa.  In  most  respects  Lincoln  was 
clear  and  explicit.  While  not  giving  an  unqualified 
approval  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  he  was  not  in 
favor  of  its  repeal;  while  believing  that  Congress 
possessed  the  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  he  favored  abolition  only  on  condition 
that  it  should  be  gradual,  acceptable  to  a  majority  of 
the  voters  of  the  District,  and  compensatory  to  un 
willing  owners;  he  would  favor  the  abolition  of  the 
slave-trade  between  the  States  only  upon  similar  con 
servative  principles;  he  believed  it,  however,  to  be 
the  right  and  duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
all  the  Territories ;  he  was  not  opposed  to  the  honest 
acquisition  of  territory,  provided  that  it  would  not 
aggravate  the  slavery  question.  The  really  crucial 
questions,  Lincoln  did  not  face  so  unequivocally.  Was 
he  opposed  to  the  admission  of  more  slave  States? 
Would  he  oppose  the  admission  of  a  new  State  with 
such  a  constitution  as  the  people  of  that  State  should 
see  fit  to  make? 

Lincoln  answered  hesitatingly:  "In  regard  to  the 
other  question,  of  whether  I  am  pledged  to  the  admis 
sion  of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union,  I  state  to 
you  very  frankly  that  I  would  be  exceedingly  sorry 
ever  to  be  put  in  a  position  of  having  to  pass  upon  that 
question.  I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  know  that 
there  would  never  be  another  slave  State  admitted 
into  the  Union;  but  I  must  add,  that  if  slavery  shall 
be  kept  out  of  the  Territories  during  the  territorial 
existence  of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the 
people  shall,  having  a  fair  chance  and  a  clear  field. 


372  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

when  they  come  to  adopt  the  Constitution,  do  such  an 
extraordinary  thing  as  to  adopt  a  slave  Constitution, 
uninfluenced  by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution 
among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we  own  the  country, 
but  to  admit  them  into  the  Union."1 

It  was  now  Lincoln's  turn  to  catechise  his  opponent. 
He  had  prepared  four  questions,  the  second  of  which 
caused  his  friends  some  misgivings.2  It  read:  "Can 
the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  in  any  lawful 
way,  against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits  prior  to  the 
formation  of  a  State  Constitution?" 

Lincoln  knew  well  enough  that  Douglas  held  to  the 
power  of  the  people  practically  to  exclude  slavery, 
regardless  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court; 
Douglas  had  said  as  much  in  his  hearing  at  Blooming- 
ton.  What  he  desired  to  extort  from  Douglas  was  his 
opinion  of  the  legality  of  such  action  in  view  of  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  Should  Douglas  answer  in  the 
negative,  popular  sovereignty  would  become  an  empty 
phrase ;  should  he  answer  in  the  affirmative,  he  would 
put  himself,  so  Lincoln  calculated,  at  variance  with 
Southern  Democrats,  who  claimed  that  the  people  of 
a  Territory  were  now  inhibited  from  any  such  power 
over  slave  property.  In  the  latter  event,  Lincoln  pro 
posed  to  give  such  publicity  to  Douglas's  reply  as  to 
make  any  future  evasion  or  retraction  impossible.3 

Douglas  faced  the  critical  question  without  the 
slightest  hesitation.  "It  matters  not  what  way  the 

1  Debates,  p.  89. 

a  Holland,  Lincoln,  pp.  188-189;  Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon- 
Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  p.  109. 

»  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  p.  109. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  373 

Supreme  Court  may  hereafter  decide  as  to  the  abstract 
question  whether  slavery  may  or  may  not  go  into  a 
Territory  under  the  Constitution,  the  people  have  the 
lawful  means  to  introduce  it  or  exclude  it  as  they  please, 
for  the  reason  that  slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an 
hour  anywhere,  unless  it  is  supported  by  local  police 
regulations.  Those  police  regulations  can  only  be 
established  by  the  local  legislature ;  and  if  the  people 
are  opposed  to  slavery,  they  will  elect  representatives 
to  that  body  who  will  by  unfriendly  legislation  effectu 
ally  prevent  the  introduction  of  it  into  their  midst. 
If,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  for  it,  their  legislation 
will  favor  its  extension.  Hence,  no  matter  what  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  be  on  that  abstract 
question,  still  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  a  slave 
Territory  or  a  free  Territory  is  perfect  and  complete 
under  the  Nebraska  Bill.  I  hope  Mr.  Lincoln  deems 
my  answer  satisfactory  on  that  point  m 

The  other  three  questions  involved  less  risk  for  the 
advocate  of  popular  sovereignty.  He  would  vote  to 
admit  Kansas  without  the  requisite  population  for 
representation  in  Congress,  if  the  people  should  frame 
an  unobjectionable  constitution.  He  would  prefer  a 
general  rule  on  this  point,  but  since  Congress  had 
decided  that  Kansas  had  enough  people  to  form  a  slave 
State,  she  surely  had  enough  to  constitute  a  free  State. 
He  scouted  the  imputation  in  the  third  question,  that 
the  Supreme  Court  could  so  far  violate  the  Constitu 
tion  as  to  decide  that  a  State  could  not  exclude  slavery 
from  its  own  limits.  He  would  always  vote  for  the 
acquisition  of  new  territory,  when  it  was  needed,  irre 
spective  of  the  question  of  slavery.2 

1  Debates,  p.  95.  2  Debates,  pp.  94-97. 


374  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

Smarting  under  Lincoln's  animadversions  respect 
ing  the  Springfield  resolutions,  Douglas  explained  his 
error  by  quoting  from  a  copy  of  the  Illinois  State 
Register,  which  had  printed  the  resolutions  as  the 
work  of  the  convention  at  the  capital.  He  gave  notice 
that  he  would  investigate  the  matter,  "when  he  got 
down  to  Springfield. ' '  At  all  events  there  was  ample 
proof  that  the  resolutions  were  a  faithful  exposition 
of  Eepublican  doctrine  in  the  year  1854.  Douglas  then 
read  similar  resolutions  adopted  by  a  convention  in 
Rockford  County.  One  Turner,  who  was  acting  as 
one  of  the  moderators,  interrupted  him  at  this  point, 
to  say  that  he  had  drawn  those  very  resolutions  and 
that  they  were  the  Eepublican  creed  exactly.  "And 
yet,"  exclaimed  Douglas  triumphantly,  "and  yet 
Lincoln  denies  that  he  stands  on  them.  Mr.  Turner 
says  that  the  creed  of  the  Black  Eepublican  party 
is  the  admission  of  no  more  slave  States,  and  yet  Mr. 
Lincoln  declares  that  he  would  not  like  to  be  placed 
in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  vote  for  them. 
All  I  have  to  say  to  friend  Lincoln  is,  that  I  do  not 
think  there  is  much  danger  of  his  being  placed  in  such 
a  position.  ...  I  propose,  out  of  mere  kindness,  to 
relieve  him  from  any  such  necessity."1 

As  he  continued,  Douglas  grew  offensively  denun 
ciatory.  His  opponents  were  invariably  Black  Eepub- 
licans ;  Lincoln  was  the  ally  of  rank  Abolitionists  like 
Giddings  and  Fred  Douglass;  of  course  those  who  be 
lieved  in  political  and  social  equality  for  blacks  and 
whites  would  vote  for  Lincoln.  Lincoln  had  found  fault 
with  the  resolutions  because  they  were  not  adopted 
on  the  right  spot.  Lincoln  and  his  friends  were  great 

debates,  pp.  100-101. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  375 

on  "spots."  Lincoln  had  opposed  the  Mexican  War 
because  American  blood  was  not  shed  on  American 
soil  in  the  right  spot.  Trumbull  and  Lincoln  were  like 
two  decoy  ducks  which  lead  the  flock  astray.  Ambition, 
personal  ambition,  had  led  to  the  formation  of  the  Black 
Republican  party.  Lincoln  and  his  friends  were  now 
only  trying  to  secure  what  Trumbull  had  cheated  them 
out  of  in  1855,  when  the  senatorship  fell  to  Trumbull. 
Under  this  savage  attack  the  crowd  grew  restive.  As 
Douglas  repeated  the  epithet  "Black"  Eepublican,  he 
was  interrupted  by  indignant  cries  of  "White," 
"White."  But  Douglas  shouted  back  defiantly,  "I 
wish  to  remind  you  that  while  Mr.  Lincoln  was  speak 
ing  there  was  not  a  Democrat  vulgar  and  blackguard 
enough  to  interrupt  him,"  and  browbeat  his  hearers 
into  quiet  again.1 

Realizing,  perhaps,  the  immense  difficulty  of  expos 
ing  the  fallacy  of  Douglas's  reply  to  his  questions,  in 
the  few  moments  at  his  disposal,  Lincoln  did  not  refer 
to  the  crucial  point.  He  contented  himself  with  a 
defense  of  his  own  consistency.  His  best  friends  were 
dispirited,  when  the  half -hour  ended.  They  could 
not  shake  off  the  impression  that  Douglas  had  saved 
himself  from  defeat  by  his  adroit  answers  to  Lincoln's 
interrogatories.2 

The  next  joint  debate  occurred  nearly  three  weeks 
later  down  in  Egypt.  By  slow  stages,  speaking  inces 
santly  at  all  sorts  of  meetings,  Douglas  and  Lincoln 
made  their  several  ways  through  the  doubtful  central 
counties  to  Jonesboro  in  Union  County.  This  was  the 
enemy's  country  for  Lincoln;  and  by  reason  of  the 

1  Debates,  p.  101. 

2  Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  p.  110. 


376  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

activities  of  United  States  Marshal  Dougherty,  a 
•Buchanan  appointee,  the  county  was  scarcely  less  hos 
tile  to  Douglas.  The  meeting  was  poorly  attended. 
Those  who  listened  to  the  speakers  were  chary  of  ap 
plause  and  appeared  politically  apathetic.1 

Douglas  opened  the  debate  by  a  wild,  unguarded 
appeal  to  partisan  prejudices.  Knowing  his  hearers, 
he  was  personally  vindictive  in  his  references  to  Black 
Republicans  in  general  and  to  Lincoln  in  particular. 
He  reiterated  his  stock  arguments,  giving  new  vehe 
mence  to  his  charge  of  corrupt  bargain  between  Trum- 
bull  and  Lincoln  by  quoting  Matheny,  a  Republican 
and  "Mr.  Lincoln's  especial  and  confidential  friend 
for  the  last  twenty  years/'2 

Lincoln  begged  leave  to  doubt  the  authenticity  of 
this  new  evidence,  in  view  of  the  little  episode  at 
Ottawa,  concerning  the  Springfield  resolutions.  At 
all  events  the  whole  story  was  untrue,  and  he  had 
already  declared  it  to  be  such.3  Why  should  Douglas 
persist  in  misrepresenting  him!  Brushing  aside  these 
lesser  matters,  however,  Lincoln  addressed  himself  to 
what  had  now  come  to  be  known  as  Douglas's  Freeport 
doctrine.  "I  hold,"  said  he,  "that  the  proposition 
that  slavery  cannot  enter  a  new  country  without  police 
regulations  is  historically  false.  .  .  .  There  is  enough 
vigor  in  slavery  to  plant  itself  in  a  new  country  even 
against  unfriendly  legislation.  It  takes  not  only  law 
but  the  enforcement  of  law  to  keep  it  out. ' '  Moreover, 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott 
case  had  created  constitutional  obligations.  Now  that 
the  right  of  property  in  slaves  was  affirmed  by  the 
Constitution,  according  to  the  Court,  how  could  a  mem- 

1  Mr.  Horace  White  in  Hernclon-Weik,  Lincoln,  p.  118. 
a Debates,  pp.  113-114.  'Ibid.,  p.  120. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  377 

ber  of  a  territorial  legislature,  who  had  taken  the  oath 
to  support  the  Constitution,  refuse  to  give  his  vote 
for  laws  necessary  to  establish  slave  property?  And 
how  could  a  member  of  Congress  keep  his  oath  and 
withhold  the  necessary  protection  to  slave  property 
in  the  Territories?1 

Of  course  Lincoln  was  well  aware  that  Douglas  held 
that  the  Court  had  decided  only  the  question  of  juris 
diction  in  the  Dred  Scott  case;  and  that  all  else 
was  a  mere  obiter  dictum.  Nevertheless,  "the  Court 
did  pass  its  opinion.  ...  If  they  did  not  decide,  they 
showed  what  they  were  ready  to  decide  whenever  the 
matter  was  before  them.  They  used  language  to  this 
effect:  That  inasmuch  as  Congress  itself  could  not 
exercise  such  a  power  [i.  e.,  pass  a  law  prohibiting 
slavery  in  the  Territories],  it  followed  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  it  could  not  authorize  a  Territorial  Gov 
ernment  to  exercise  it ;  for  the  Territorial  Legislature 
can  do  no  more  than  Congress  could  do."2 

The  only  answer  of  Douglas  to  this  trenchant  an 
alysis  was  a  reiterated  assertion:  "I  assert  that  under 
the  Dred  Scott  decision  [taking  Lincoln's  view  of  that 
decision]  you  cannot  maintain  slavery  a  day  in  a  Ter 
ritory  where  there  is  an  unwilling  people  and  un 
friendly  legislation.  If  the  people  are  opposed  to  it, 
our  right  is  a  barren,  worthless,  useless  right;  and  if 
they  are  for  it,  they  will  support  and  encourage  it."3 

Douglas  made  much  of  Lincoln's  evident  unwilling 
ness  to  commit  himself  on  the  question  of  admitting 
more  slave  States.  In  various  ways  he  sought  to  trip 
his  adversary,  believing  that  Lincoln  had  pledged  him 
self  to  his  Abolitionist  allies  in  1855  to  vote  against  the 

1  Debates,  p.  127.  2  Ibid.,  p.  129.  •  Ibid.,  p.  135. 


378  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

admission  of  more  slave  States,  if  lie  should  be  elected 
senator.  "Let  me  tell  Mr.  Lincoln  that  his  party  in 
the  northern  part  of  the  State  hold  to  that  Abolition 
platform  [no  more  slave  States],  and  if  they  do 
not  in  the  South  and  in  the  center,  they  present  the 
extraordinary  spectacle  of  a  house-divided-against- 
itself.'  "* 

Douglas  turned  the  edge  of  Lincoln's  thrust  at  the 
duties  of  legislators  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision  by 
saying,  "Well,  if  you  are  not  going  to  resist  the  de 
cision,  if  you  obey  it,  and  do  not  intend  to  array  mob 
law  against  the  constituted  authorities,  then,  accord 
ing  to  your  own  statement,  you  will  be  a  perjured  man 
if  you  do  not  vote  to  establish  slavery  in  these  Terri 
tories.  "2  And  it  did  not  save  Lincoln  from  the  horns 
of  this  uncomfortable  dilemma  to  repeat  that  he  did 
,not  accept  the  Dred  Scott  decision  as  a  rule  for  poli 
tical  action,  for  he  had  just  emphasized  the  moral 
obligation  of  obeying  the  law  of  the  Constitution. 

From  the  darkness  of  Egypt,  Douglas  and  Lincoln 
journeyed  northward  toward  Charleston  in  Coles 
County,  where  the  fourth  debate  was  to  be  held.  Both 
paused  en  route  to  visit  the  State  Fair,  then  in  full 
blast  at  Centralia.  Curious  crowds  followed  them 
around  the  fair  grounds,  deeming  the  rival  candidates 
quite  as  worthy  of  close  scrutiny  as  the  other  exhibits.3 

1  Debates,  p.  133.  Lamon  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  Lincoln 
pledged  himself  to  Love  joy  and  his  faction  to  favor  the  exclusion  of 
slavery  from  all  the  territory  of  the  United  States.  Douglas  did  not 
know  of  this  pledge,  but  suspected  an  understanding  to  this  effect.  If 
Lamon  may  be  believed,  this  statement  explains  the  persistence  of 
Douglas  on  this  point  and  the  evasiveness  of  Lincoln.  See  Lamon, 
Lincoln,  pp.  361-365.  2  Ibid.,  p.  135. 

*Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  p.  119. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  379 

Ten  miles  from  Charleston,  they  left  the  train  to  be 
escorted  by  rival  processions  along  the  dusty  highway 
to  their  destination.  From  all  the  country-side  people 
had  come  to  town  to  cheer  on  their  respective  cham 
pions.1  This  twenty-fifth  district,  comprising  Coles 
and  Moultrie  counties,  had  been  carried  by  the  Demo 
crats  in  1856,  but  was  now  regarded  as  doubtful.  The 
uncertainty  added  piquancy  to  the  debate. 

It  was  Lincoln's  turn  to  open  the  joust.  At  the 
outset  he  tried  to  allay  misapprehensions  regarding 
his  attitude  toward  negro  equality.  "I  will  say,  then, 
that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing 
about  in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equality  of 
the  white  and  black  races ;  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have 
been,  in  favor  of  making  voters  or  jurors  of  negroes, 
nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  nor  to  intermarry 
with  white  people ;  and  I  will  say  in  addition  to  this, 
that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white 
and  black  races  which  I  believe  will  forever  forbid  the 
two  races  living  together  on  terms  of  social  and  poli 
tical  equality.  And  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live, 
while  they  do  remain  together  there  must  be  the  posi 
tion  of  superior  and  inferior,  and  I  as  much  as  any 
other  man  am  in  favor  of  having  the  superior  position 
assigned  to  the  white  race.  I  say  upon  this  occasion 
I  do  not  perceive  that  because  the  white  man  is  to  have 
the  superior  position  the  negro  should  be  denied  every 
thing.  I  do  not  understand  that  because  I  do  not  want 
a  negro  woman  for  a  slave  I  must  necessarily  want  her 
for  a  wife.  My  understanding  is  that  I  can  just  let  her 
alone."2  This  was  by  far  the  most  explicit  statement 
that  he  had  yet  made  on  the  hazardous  subject. 

'Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  p.  121. 
2  Debates,  p.  136. 


380 


STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 


Lincoln  then  turned  upon  his  opponent,  with  more 
aggressiveness  than,  he  had  hitherto  exhibited,  to  drive 
home  the  charge  which  Trumbull  had  made  earlier 
in  the  campaign.  Prompted  by  Trumbull,  probably, 
Lincoln  reviewed  the  shadowy  history  of  the  Toombs 
bill  and-  Douglas's  still  more  enigmatical  connection 
with  it.  The  substance  of  the  indictment  was,  that 
Douglas  had  suppressed  that  part  of  the  original  bill 
which  provided  for  a  popular  vote  on  the  constitution 
to  be  drafted  by  the  Kansas  convention.  In  replying 
to  Trumbull,  Douglas  had  damaged  his  own  case  by 
denying  that  the  Toombs  bill  had  ever  contained  such 
a  provision.  Lincoln  proved  the  contrary  by  the  most 
transparent  testimony,  convicting  Douglas  not  only  of 
the  original  offense  but  of  an  untruth  in  connection 
with  it.1 

This  was  not  a  vague  charge  of  conspiracy  which 
could  be  treated  with  contempt,  but  an  indictment, 
accompanied  by  circumstantial  evidence.  While  a 
dispassionate  examination  of  the  whole  incident  will 
acquit  Douglas  of  any  part  in  a  plot  to  prevent  the 
fair  adoption  of  a  constitution  by  the  people  of 
Kansas,  yet  he  certainly  took  a  most  unfortunate  and 
prejudicial  mode  of  defending  himself.2  His  personal 
retorts  were  so  vindictive  and  his  attack  upon  Trum 
bull  so  full  of  venom,  that  his  words  did  not  carry 
conviction  to  the  minds  of  his  hearers.  It  was  a  matter 
of  common  observation  that  Democrats  seemed  ill  at 
ease  after  the  debate.3  "Judge  Douglas  is  playing 
cuttle-fish,''  remarked  Lincoln,  noting  with  satisfac 
tion  the  very  evident  discomfiture  of  his  opponent,  "a 

'Debates,  pp.  137-143.  "See  above  pp.  303-304. 

•Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  p.  122. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  381 

small  species  of  fish  that  has  no  mode  of  defending 
itself  when  pursued  except  by  throwing  out  a  black 
fluid,  which  makes  the  water  so  dark  the  enemy  cannot 
see  it,  and  thus  it  escapes. ni 

Douglas,  however,  did  his  best  to  recover  his  ground 
by  accusing  Lincoln  of  shifting  his  principles  as  he 
passed  from  the  northern  counties  to  Egypt;  the 
principles  of  his  party  in  the  north  were  "jet-black," 
in  the  center,  "a  decent  mulatto,"  and  in  lower  Egypt ; 
"almost  white."  Lincoln  then  dared  him  to  point  out 
any  difference  between  his  speeches.  Blows  now  fell 
thick  and  fast,  both  speakers  approaching  dangerously 
near  the  limit  of  parliamentary  language.  Reverting 
to  his  argument  that  slavery  must  be  put  in  the  course 
of  ultimate  extinction,  Lincoln  made  this  interesting 
qualification:  "I  do  not  mean  that  when  it  takes  a 
turn  toward  ultimate  extinction  it  will  be  in  a  day,  nor 
in  a  year,  nor  in  two  years.  I  do  not  suppose  that  in 
the  most  peaceful  way  ultimate  extinction  would  occur 
in  less  than  a  hundred  years  at  Jeast;  but  that  it  will 
occur  in  the  best  way  for  both  races,  in  God's  own  good 
time,  I  have  no  doubt."2 

Douglas  was  now  feeling  the  full  force  of  the  oppo 
sition  within  his  own  party.  The  Republican  news 
papers  of  the  State  had  seized  upon  his  Freeport 
speech  to  convince  the  South  and  the  administration 
that  he  was  false  to  their  creed.  The  Washington 
Union  had  from  the  first  denounced  him  as  a  renegade, 
with  whom  no  self-respecting  Democrat  would  asso 
ciate.3  Slidell  was  active  in  Illinois,  spending  money 

1  Debates,  p.  159.  2  Tbid.,  p.  157. 

8  Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  342. 


382  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

freely  to  defeat  him.1  The  Danites  in  the  central 
counties  plotted  incessantly  to  weaken  his  following. 
Daniel  S.  Dickinson  of  New  York  sent  "a  Thousand 
Greetings"  to  a  mass-meeting  of  Danites  in  Spring 
field, — a  liberal  allowance,  commented  some  Douglasite, 
as  each  delegate  would  receive  about  ten  greetings.2 
Yet  the  dimensions  of  this  movement  were  not  easily 
ascertained.  The  declination  of  Vice-President  Breck- 
inridge  to  come  to  the  aid  of  Douglas  was  a  rebuff  not 
easily  laughed  down,  though  to  be  sure,  he  expressed 
a  guarded  preference  for  Douglas  over  Lincoln.  The 
coolness  of  Breckinridge  was  in  a  measure  offset  by 
the  friendliness  of  Senator  Crittenden,  who  refused  to 
aid  Lincoln,  because  he  believed  Douglas's  re-election 
"necessary  as  a  rebuke  to  the  administration  and  a 
vindication  of  the  great  cause  of  popular  rights  and 
public  justice."3  The  most  influential  Eepublican 
papers  in  the  East  gave  Lincoln  tardy  support,  with 
the  exception  of  the  New  York  Times.4 

Unquestionably  Douglas  drew  upon  resources  which 
Lincoln  could  not  command.  The  management  of  the 
Illinois  Central  Eailroad  was  naturally  friendly  toward 
him,  though  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  countenanced 
any  illegitimate  use  of  influence  on  his  behalf.  If 
Douglas  enjoyed  special  train  service,  which  Lincoln 
did  not,  it  was  because  he  drew  upon  funds  that  ex 
ceeded  Lincoln 's  modest  income.  How  many  thousands 
of  dollars  Douglas  devoted  from  his  own  exchequer  to 

^oote,  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  p.  135;  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln, 
II,  p.  127. 

2  Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  p.  129. 
*Coleman,  Life  of  Crittenden,  II,  p.  163. 
•Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  341. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  383 

his  campaign,  can  now  only  be  conjectured.  In  all 
probability,  he  spent  all  that  remained  from  the  sale 
of  his  real  estate  in  Chicago,  and  more  which  he  bor 
rowed  in  New  York  by  mortgaging  his  other  holdings 
in  Cook  County.1  And  not  least  among  his  assets  was 
the  constant  companionship  of  Mrs.  Douglas,  whose 
tact,  grace,  and  beauty  placated  feelings  which  had 
been  ruffled  by  the  rude  vigor  of  "the  Little  Giant."2 
When  the  rivals  met  three  weeks  later  at  Galesburg, 
they  were  disposed  to  drop  personalities.  Indeed,  both 
were  aware  that  they  were  about  to  address  men  and 
women  who  demanded  an  intelligent  discussion  of  the 
issues  of  the  hour.  Lincoln  had  the  more  sympathetic 
hearing,  for  Knox  County  was  consistently  Republican ; 
and  the  town  with  its  academic  atmosphere  and  New 
England  traditions  shared  his  hostility  to  slavery. 
Vast  crowds  braved  the  cold,  raw  winds  of  the  Octo 
ber  day  to  listen  for  three  hours  to  this  debate.3  From 
a  platform  on  the  college  campus,  Douglas  looked 
down  somewhat  defiantly  upon  his  hearers,  though 
his  words  were  well-chosen  and  courteous.  The  cir 
cumstances  were  much  the  same  as  at  Ottawa;  and 
he  spoke  in  much  the  same  vein.  He  rang  the  changes 
upon  his  great  fundamental  principle;  he  defended 
his  course  in  respect  to  Lecomptonism ;  he  denounced 
the  Republican  party  as  a  sectional  organization  whose 
leaders  were  bent  upon  "outvoting,  conquering,  gov- 

'Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  338,  note  3.  The 
record  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Cook  County,  December  term,  1867,  states 
that  the  entire  lien  upon  the  estate  in  1864  exceeded  $94,000.  The 
mortgages  were  held  by  Fernando  Wood  and  others  of  New  York. 

2Villard,  Memoirs,  I,  p.  92. 

8  Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  p.  123. 


384  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

erning,  and  controlling  the  South."  Douglas  laid 
great  stress  upon  this  sectional  aspect  of  Republican 
ism,  which  made  its  southward  extension  impossible. 
"Not  only  is  this  Republican  party  unable  to  proclaim 
its  principles  alike  in  the  North  and  in  the  South,  in 
the  free  States  and  in  the  slave  States,  but  it  cannot 
even  proclaim  them  in  the  same  forms  and  give  them 
the  same  strength  and  meaning  in  all  parts  of  the  same 
State.  My  friend  Lincoln  finds  it  extremely  difficult 
to  manage  a  debate  in  the  center  part  of  the  State, 
where  there  is  a  mixture  of  men  from  the  North  and 
the  South. 'n 

Here  Douglas  paused  to  read  from  Lincoln's 
speeches  at  Chicago  and  at  Charleston,  and  to  ask  his 
hearers  to  reconcile  the  conflicting  statements  respect 
ing  negro  equality.  He  pronounced  Lincoln's  doctrine, 
that  the  negro  and  the  white  man  are  made  equal  by 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  Divine  Provi 
dence,  "a  monstrous  heresy." 

Lincoln  protested  that  nothing  was  farther  from 
his  purpose  than  to  "advance  hypocritical  and  decep 
tive  and  contrary  views  in  different  portions  of  the 
country."  As  for  the  charge  of  sectionalism,  Judge 
Douglas  was  himself  fast  becoming  sectional,  for  his 
speeches  no  longer  passed  current  south  of  the  Ohio 
as  they  had  once  done.  "Whatever  may  be  the  result 
of  this  ephemeral  contest  between  Judge  Douglas  and 
myself,  I  see  the  day  rapidly  approaching  when  his 
pill  of  sectionalism,  which  he  has  been  thrusting  down 
the  throats  of  Republicans  for  years  past,  will  be 
crowded  down  his  own  throat."2 

And  Lincoln  again  scored  on  his  opponent,  when  he 

debates,  p.  173.  *  Ibid.,  p.  180. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  385 

pointed  out  that  his  political  doctrine  rested  upon  the 
major  premise,  that  there  was  no  wrong  in  slavery. 
"If  you  will  take  the  Judge's  speeches,  and  select  the 
short  and  pointed  sentences  expressed  by  him, — as  his 
declaration  that  he  'don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted 
up  or  down' — you  will  see  at  once  that  this  is  perfectly 
logical,  if  you  do  not  admit  that  slavery  is  wrong.  •  •*«  1 4j 
Judge  Douglas  declares  that  if  any  community  wants  I 
slavery  they  have  a  right  to  have  it.    He  can  say  that  \ 
logically,  if  he  says  that  there  is  no  wrong  in  slavery ;  \ 
but  if  you  admit  that  there  is  a  wrong  in  it,  he  cannot  I 
logically  say  that  anybody  has  a  right  to  do  wrong."1 

Those  who  now  read  these  memorable  debates  dis 
passionately,  will  surely  acquit  Lincoln  of  inconsis 
tency  in  his  attitude  toward  the  negro.  His  speech 
at  Charleston  supplements  the  speech  at  Chicago;  at 
Gralesburg,  he  made  an  admirable  re-statement  of  his 
position.  Nevertheless,  there  was  a  marked  difference 
in  point  of  emphasis  between  his  utterances  in  North 
ern  and  in  Southern  Illinois.  Even  the  casual  reader 
will  detect  subtle  omissions  which  the  varying  char 
acter  of  his  audience  forced  upon  Lincoln.  In  Chicago 
he  said  nothing  about  the  physical  inferiority  of  the 
negro ;  he  said  nothing  about  the  equality  of  the  races 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  when  he  spoke  at 
Charleston.  Among  men  of  anti-slavery  leanings,  he  • 
had  much  to  say  about  the  moral  wrong  of  slavery; 
in  the  doubtful  counties,  Lincoln  was  solicitous  that 
he  should  not  be  understood  as  favoring  social  and 
political  equality  between  whites  and  blacks. 

Feeling  keenly  this  diplomatic  shifting  of  emphasis, 
Douglas  persisted  in  accusing  Lincoln  of  inconsistency : 

Debates,  p.  181. 
25 


386  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

"He  lias  one  set  of  principles  for  the  Abolition  coun 
ties  and  another  set  for  the  counties  opposed  to  Aboli 
tionism.  "  If  Lincoln  had  said  in  Coles  County  what 
he  has  to-day  said  in  old  Knox,  Douglas  complained, 
"it  would  have  settled  the  question  between  us  in  that 
doubtful  county."1  And  in  this  Douglas  was  probably 
correct. 

At  Quincy,  Douglas  was  in  his  old  bailiwick.  Three 
times  the  Democrats  of  this  district  had  sent  him  to 
Congress ;  and  though  the  bounds  of  the  congressional 
district  had  since  been  changed,  Adams  County  was 
still  Democratic  by  a  safe  majority.  Among  the  people 
who  greeted  the  speakers,  however,  were  many  old- 
time  Whigs,  for  whose  special  benefit  the  Eepublicans 
of  the  city  carried  on  a  pole,  at  the  head  of  their  pro 
cession,  a  live  raccoon.  With  a  much  keener  historic 
sense,  the  Democrats  bore  aloft  a  dead  raccoon,  sus 
pended  by  its  tail.2 

Lincoln  again  harked  back  to  his  position  that  slavery 
was  "a  moral,  a  social,  and  a  political  wrong"  which 
the  Eepublican  party  proposed  to  prevent  from  grow 
ing  any  larger;  and  that  "the  leading  man — I  think  I 
may  do  my  friend  Judge  Douglas  the  honor  of  calling 
him  such — advocating  the  present  Democratic  policy, 
never  himself  says  it  is  wrong. ' '3 

The  consciousness  that  he  was  made  to  seem  morally 
obtuse,  cut  Douglas  to  the  quick.  Even  upon  his 
tough  constitution  this  prolonged  campaign  was  be 
ginning  to  tell.  His  voice  was  harsh  and  broken ;  and 
he  gave  unmistakable  signs  of  nervous  irritability, 

1  Debates,  p.  188. 

2  Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  pp.  123-124. 
"Debates,  p.  198. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  387 

brought  on  by  physical  fatigue.  When  he  rose  to  reply 
to  Lincoln,  his  manner  was  offensively  combative.  At 
the  outset,  he  referred  angrily  to  Lincoln's  " gross 
personalities  and  base  insinuations."1  In  his  refer 
ences  to  the  Springfield  resolutions  and  to  his  mistake, 
or  rather  the  mistake  of  his  friends  at  the  capital,  he 
was  particularly  denunciatory.  "When  I  make  a  mis 
take,  "  he  boasted,  "as  an  honest  man,  I  correct  it  with 
out  being  asked  to,  but  when  he,  Lincoln,  makes  a  false 
charge,  he  sticks  to  it  and  never  corrects  it."2 

But  Douglas  was  too  old  a  campaigner  to  lose  con 
trol  of  himself,  and  no  doubt  the  rude  charge  and 
counter-charge  were  prompted  less  by  personal  ill-will 
than  by  controversial  exigencies.  Those  who  have 
conceived  Douglas  as  the  victim  of  deep-seated  and 
abiding  resentment  toward  Lincoln,  forget  the  impul 
sive  nature  of  the  man.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that  Lincoln  took  these  blows  to  heart.  He 
had  himself  dealt  many  a  vigorous  blow  in  times  past. 
It  was  part  of  the  game. 

Douglas  found  fault  with  Lincoln's  answers  to  the 
Ottawa  questions :  "I  ask  you  again,  Lincoln,  will  you 
vote  to  admit  New  Mexico,  when  she  has  the  requisite 
population  with  such  a  constitution  as  her  people 
adopt,  either  recognizing  slavery  or  not,  as  they  shall 
determine!"  He  was  well  within  the  truth  when  he 
asserted  that  Lincoln's  answer  had  been  purposely 
evasive  and  equivocal,  "having  no  reference  to  any 
territory  now  in  existence."3  Of  Lincoln's  Eepublican 
policy  of  confining  slavery  within  its  present  limits, 
by  prohibiting  it  in  the  Territories,  he  said,  "When  he 

1  Debates,  p.  199;    McClure's  Magazine,  January,  1907. 

2  Debates,  p.  201.  8  Ibid.,  p.  201. 


I 


388  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

gets  it  thus  confined,  and  surrounded,  so  that  it  cannot 
spread,  the  natural  laws  of  increase  will  go  on  until 
the  negroes  will  be  so  plenty  that  they  cannot  live  on 
the  soil.  He  will  hem  them  in  until  starvation  seizes 
them,  and  by  starving  them  to  death,  he  will  put  slavery 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction."1  A  silly  argu 
ment  which  Douglas's  wide  acquaintance  with  South 
ern  conditions  flatly  contradicted  and  should  have  kept 
him  from  repeating. 

To  the  charge  of  moral  obliquity  on  the  slavery  ques 
tion,  Douglas  made  a  dignified  and  worthy  reply.  "I 
hold  that  the  people  of  the  slave-holding  States  are 
civilized  men  as  well  as  ourselves ;  that  they  bear  con 
sciences  as  well  as  we,  and  that  they  are  accountable 
to  God  and  their  posterity,  and  not  to  us.  It  is  for 
them  to  decide,  therefore,  the  moral  and  religious 
right  of  the  slavery  question  for  themselves  within 
their  own  limits."2 

On  the  following  day  both  Lincoln  and  Douglas  took 
passage  on  a  river  steamer  for  Alton.  The  county  of 
Madison  had  once  been  Whig  in  its  political  proclivi 
ties.  In  the  State  legislature  it  was  now  represented 
by  two  representatives  and  a  senator  who  were  Native 
Americans;  and  in  the  present  campaign,  the  county 
was  classed  as  doubtful.  In  Alton  and  elsewhere  there 
was  a  large  German  vote  which  was  likely  to  sway  the 
election. 

Douglas  labored  under  a  physical  disadvantage.  His 
voice  was  painful  to  hear,  while  Lincoln's  betrayed  no 
sign  of  fatigue.3  Both  fell  into  the  argument  ad  homi- 
nem.  Lincoln  advocated  holding  the  Territories  open 

1  Debates,  p.  204.  *Ibid.,  p.  209. 

8  Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  p.  124. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  389 

to  "free  white  people"  the  world  over — to  "Hans,- 
Baptiste,  and  Patrick."  Douglas  contended  that  the 
equality  referred  to  in  the  Declaration  of  Indepen-j 
dence,  was  the  equality  of  white  men — "men  of  Euro-j 
pean  birth  and  European  descent."  Both  conjured! 
with  the  revered  name  of  Clay.  Douglas  persistently 
referred  to  Lincoln  as  an  Abolitionist,  knowing  that 
his  auditors  had  "strong  sympathies  southward,"  as 
Lincoln  shrewdly  guessed;  while  Lincoln  sought  to 
unmask  that  "false  statesmanship  that  undertakes  to 
build  up  a  system  of  policy  upon  the  basis  of  caring 
nothing  about  the  very  thing  that  everybody  does  care 
the  most  about."1 

Douglas  made  a  successful  appeal  to  the  sympathy 
of  the  crowd,  when  he  said  of  his  conduct  in  the  Le- 
compton  fight,  "Most  of  the  men  who  denounced  my 
course  on  the  Lecompton  question  objected  to  it,  not 
because  I  was  not  right,  but  because  they  thought  it 
expedient  at  that  time,  for  the  sake  of  keeping  the  party 
together,  to  do  wrong.  I  never  knew  the  Democratic 
party  to  violate  any  one  of  its  principles,  out  of  policy 
or  expediency,  that  it  did  not  pay  the  debt  with  sorrow. 
There  is  no  safety  or  success  for  our  party  unless  we 
always  do  right,  and  trust  the  consequences  to  God 
and  the  people.  I  chose  not  to  depart  from  principle 
for  the  sake  of  expediency  on  the  Lecompton  question, 
and  I  never  intend  to  do  it  on  that  or  any  other  ques 
tion."2 

Both  at  Quincy  and  at  Alton,  Douglas  paid  his  re 
spects  to  the  "contemptible  crew"  who  were  trying  to 
break  up  the  party  and  defeat  him.  At  first  he  had 
avoided  direct  attacks  upon  the  administration;  but 

'Debates,  p.  231.  *lUd.,  p.  218. 


390  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

the  relentless  persecution  of  the  Washington  Union 
made  him  restive.  Lincoln  derived  great  satisfaction 
from  this  intestine  warfare  in  the  Democratic  camp. 
"Go  it,  husband!  Go  it,  bear!"  he  cried. 

In  this  last  debate,  both  sought  to  summarize  the 
issues.  Said  Lincoln,  "You  may  turn  over  everything 
in  the  Democratic  policy  from  beginning  to  end,  .  .  . 
it  everywhere  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is 
anything  wrong  in  it  [slavery]. 

"That  is  the  real  issue.  That  is  the  issue  that  will 
continue  in  this  country  when  these  poor  tongues  of 
Judge  Douglas  and  myself  shall  be  silent.  It  is  the 
eternal  struggle  between  these  two  principles — right 
and  wrong — throughout  the  world.  ...  I  was  glad  to 
express  my  gratitude  at  Quincy,  and  I  re-express  it 
here,  to  Judge  Douglas, — that  he  looks  to  no  end  of  the 
institution  of  slavery.  That  will  help  the  people  to 
see  where  the  struggle  really  is."1 

To  the  mind  of  Douglas,  the  issue  presented  itself 
in  quite  another  form.  "He  [Lincoln]  says  that  he 
looks  forward  to  a  time  when  slavery  shall  be  abol 
ished  everywhere.  I  look  forward  to  a  time  when 
each  State  shall  be  allowed  to  do  as  it  pleases.  If  it 
chooses  to  keep  slavery  forever,  it  is  not  my  business, 
but  its  own;  if  it  chooses  to  abolish  slavery,  it  is  its 
own  business, — not  mine.  I  care  more  for  the  great 
principle  of  self-government,  the  right  of  the  people 
to  rule,  than  I  do  for  all  the  negroes  in  Christendom. 
I  would  not  endanger  the  perpetuity  of  this  Union,  I 
would  not  blot  out  the  great  inalienable  rights  of  the 
white  men,  for  all  the  negroes  that  ever  existed."2 

With  this  encounter  at  Alton,  the  joint  debates,  but 

1  Debates,  p.  234.  2  Ibid.,  p.  238. 


JOINT  DEBATE  WITH  LINCOLN  391 

not  the  campaign  closed.  Douglas  continued  to  speak 
at  various  strategic  points,  in  spite  of  inclement 
weather  and  physical  exhaustion,  up  to  the  eve  of  the 
election.1  The  canvass  had  continued  just  a  hundred  ' 
days,  during  which  Douglas  had  made  one  hundred 
and  thirty  speeches.2  During  the  last  weeks  of  the 
campaign,  election  canards  designed  to  injure  Douglas 
were  sedulously  circulated,  adding  no  little  uncertainty 
to  the  outcome  in  doubtful  districts.  The  most  damag 
ing  of  these  stories  seems  to  have  emanated  from  Sen 
ator  John  Slidell  of  Louisiana,  whose  midsummer 
sojourn  in  Illinois  has  already  been  noted.  A  Chicago 
journal  published  the  tale  that  Douglas's  slaves  in  the 
South  were  "the  subjects  of  inhuman  and  disgraceful 
treatment — that  they  were  hired  out  to  a  factor  at  fif 
teen  dollars  per  annum  each — that  he,  in  turn,  hired 
them  out  to  others  in  lots,  and  that  they  were  ill-fed, 
over-worked,  and  in  every  way  so  badly  treated  that 
they  were  spoken  of  in  the  neighborhood  where  they 
are  held  as  a  disgrace  to  all  slave-holders  and  the 
system  they  support. ' '  The  explicit  denial  of  the  story 
came  from  Slidell  some  weeks  after  the  election,  when 
the  slander  had  accomplished  the  desired  purpose.3 

All  signs  pointed  to  a  heavy  vote  for  both  tickets. 
As  the  campaign  drew  to  a  close,  the  excitement 
reached  a  pitch  rarely  equalled  even  in  presidential 
elections.  Indeed,  the  total  vote  cast  exceeded  that 
of  1856  by  many  thousands, — an  increase  that  cannot 
be  wholly  accounted  for  by  the  growth  of  population 
in  these  years.4  The  Eepublican  State  ticket  was 

1  Sheahan,  Douglas,  p.  432. 

'Nicolay  and   Hay,  Lincoln,  II,  p.   146  note. 

8  Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp.  439-442;  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  p.  128. 

4  It  has  not  been  generally  observed  that  the  Democrats  gained  more 


392  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

elected  by  less  than  four  thousand  votes  over  the 
Democratic  ticket.  The  relative  strength  of  the  rival 
candidates  for  the  senatorship,  however,  is  exhibited 
more  fully  in  the  vote  for  the  members  of  the  lower 
house  of  the  State  legislature.  The  avowed  Douglas 
candidates  polled  over  174,000,  while  the  Lincoln  men 
received  something  over  190,000.  Administration  can 
didates  received  a  scant  vote  of  less  than  2,000.  Not 
withstanding  this  popular  majority,  the  Republicans 
secured  only  thirty-five  seats,  while  the  Democratic 
minority  secured  forty.  Out  of  fifteen  contested  sena 
torial  seats,  the  Democrats  won  eight  with  a  total  of 
44,826  votes,  while  the  Eepublicans  cast  53,784  votes 
and  secured  but  seven.  No  better  proof  could  be 
offered  of  Lincoln's  contention  that  the  State  was 
gerrymandered  in  favor  of  the  Democrats.  Still,  this 
was  part  of  the  game;  and  had  the  Eepublicans  been 
in  office,  they  would  have  undoubtedly  used  an  advan 
tage  which  has  proved  too  tempting  for  the  virtue  of" 
every  American  party. 

When  the  two  houses  of  the  Illinois  Legislature 
met  in  joint  session,  January  6,  1859,  not  a  man  ven 
tured,  or  desired,  to  record  his  vote  otherwise  than 
,  as  his  party  affiliations  dictated.  Douglas  received 
fifty-four  votes  and  Lincoln  forty-six.  "  Glory  to  God 
and  the  Sucker  Democracy,"  telegraphed  the  editor 
of  the  State  Register  to  his  chief.  And  back  over  the 
wires  from  Washington  was  flashed  the  laconic  mes 
sage,  "Let  the  voice  of  the  people  rule."  But  had  the 
will  of  the  people  ruled? 

than  their  opponents  over  the  State  contest  of  1856.     The  election  re 
turns  were  as  follows: 

Democratic  ticket  in  1856,  106,643;  in  1858,  121,609;   gain,  14,966. 

Republican  ticket  in  1856,  111,375;  in  1858,  125,430;   gain,  14,055. 


CHAPTER  XVII 
THE  AFTERMATH 

Douglas  had  achieved  a  great  personal  triumph. 
Not  even  his  Eepublican  opponents  could  gainsay  it. 
In  the  East,  the  Eepublican  newspapers  .applauded 
him  undisguisedly,  not  so  much  because  they  admired 
him  or  lacked  sympathy  with  Lincoln,  as  because  they 
regarded  his  re-election  as  a  signal  condemnation  of 
the  Buchanan  administration.  Moreover,  there  was  a 
general  expectation  in  anti-slavery  circles  to  which 
Theodore  Parker  gave  expression  when  he  wrote,  "Had 
Lincoln  succeeded,  Douglas  would  be  a  ruined  man.  .  .  . 
But  now  in  place  for  six  years  more,  with  his  own 
personal  power  unimpaired  and  his  positional  in 
fluence  much  enhanced,  he  can  do  the  Democratic  party 
a  world  of  damage."1  There  was  cheer  in  this  expec 
tation  even  for  those  who  deplored  the  defeat  of 
Lincoln. 

As  Douglas  journeyed  southward  soon  after  the 
November  elections,  he  must  have  felt  the  poignant 
truth  of  Lincoln's  shrewd  observation  that  he  was  him 
self  becoming  sectional.  Though  he  was  received  with 
seeming  cordiality  at  Memphis  and  New  Orleans,  he 
could  not  but  notice  that  his  speeches,  as  Lincoln 
predicted,  "would  not  go  current  south  of  the  Ohio 
Eiver  as  they  had  formerly."  Democratic  audiences 
applauded  his  bold  insistence  upon  the  universality 
of  the  principles  of  the  party  creed,  but  the  tone  of  the 

1  Weiss,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Theodore  Parker,  II,  p.  243. 

393 


394  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

Southern  press  was  distinctly  unfriendly  to  him  and 
his  Freeport  doctrine.1  He  told  his  auditors  at  Mem 
phis  that  he  indorsed  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court;  he  believed  that  the  owners  of  slaves  had  the 
same  right  to  take  them  into  the  Territories  as  they 
had  to  take  other  property;  but  slaves  once  in  the 
Territory  were  then  subject  to  local  laws  for  protection, 
on  an  equal  footing  with  all  other  property.  If  no  local 
laws  protecting  slave  property  were  passed,  slavery 
would  be  practically  excluded.  "  Non-action  is  exclu 
sion.''  It  was  a  matter  of  soil,  climate,  interests, 
whether  a  Territory  would  permit  slavery  or  not.  "  You 
come  right  back  to  the  principle  of  dollars  and  cents.  . . 
If  old  Joshua  E.  Giddings  should  raise  a  colony  in  Ohio 
and  settle  down  in  Louisiana,  he  would  be  the  strongest 
advocate  of  slavery  in  the  whole  South ;  he  would  find 
when  he  got  there,  his  opinion  would  be  very  much 
modified;  he  would  find  on  those  sugar  plantations 
that  it  was  not  a  question  between  the  white  man  and 
the  negro,  but  between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile." 
"The  Almighty  has  drawn  the  line  on  this  continent, 
on  one  side  of  which  the  soil  must  be  cultivated  by 
slave  labor ;  on  the  other  by  white  labor. '  '2 

At  New  Orleans,  he  repeated  more  emphatically 
much  the  same  thought.  "There  is  a  line,  or  belt  of 
country,  meandering  through  the  valleys  and  over  the 
mountain  tops,  which  is  a  natural  barrier  between  free 
territory  and  slave  territory,  on  the  south  of  which  are 
to  be  found  the  productions  suitable  to  slave  labor, 
while  on  the  north  exists  a  country  adapted  to  free 

'Bhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  355. 
2  Memphis  Avalanche,  November  30,  1858,  quoted  by  Chicago  Times, 
December  8,  1858. 


THE  AFTERMATH  395 

labor  alone.  . .  .  But  in  the  great  central  regions,  where 
there  may  be  some  doubt  as  to  the  effect  of  natural 
causes,  who  ought  to  decide  the  question  except  the 
people  residing  there,  who  have  all  their  interests 
there,  who  have  gone  there  to  live  with  their  wives 
and  children  Tn 

It  was  characteristic  of  the  man  that  he  thought 
politics  even  when  he  was  in  pursuit  of  health.  Ad 
vised  to  take  an  ocean  voyage,  he  decided  to  visit  Cuba 
so  that  even  his  recreative  leisure  might  be  politically 
profitable,  for  the  island  was  more  than  ever  coveted 
by  the  South  and  he  wished  to  have  the  advantage  of 
first-hand  information  about  this  unhappy  Spanish  pro 
vince.  Landing  in  New  York  upon  his  return,  he  was 
given  a  remarkable  ovation  by  the  Democracy  of  the 
city ;  and  he  was  greeted  with  equal  warmth  in  Phila 
delphia  and  Baltimore.2  Even  a  less  ambitious  man 
might  have  been  tempted  to  believe  in  his  own  capacity 
for  leadership,  in  the  midst  of  these  apparently  spon 
taneous  demonstrations  of  regard.  At  the  capital, 
however,  he  was  less  cordially  welcomed.  He  was  not 
in  the  least  surprised,  for  while  he  was  still  in  the 
South,  the  newspapers  had  announced  his  deposition 
from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories.  He  knew  well  enough  what  he  had  to  expect 
from  the  group  of  Southern  Democrats  who  had  the 
ear  of  the  administration.3  Nevertheless,  his  removal 
from  a  position  which  he  had  held  ever  since  he  entered 
the  Senate  was  a  bitter  pill. 

1New  Orleans  Delta,  December  8,  1858,  quoted  by  Chicago   Times, 
December  19,  1858. 

2  Ehodes,  History  of  United  States,  II,  p.  355. 

3  See  reported  conversation  of  Douglas  with  the  editor  of  the  Chicago 
Press  and  Tribune,  Hollister,  Life  of  Colfax,  p.  123. 


396  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

For  the  sake  of  peace  Douglas  smothered  his  resent 
ment,  and,  for  a  brief  time  at  least,  sought  to  demon 
strate  his  political  orthodoxy  in  matters  where  there 
was  no  conflict  of  opinion.  As  a  member  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  he  cordially  supported  the 
bill  for  the  purchase  of  Cuba,  even  though  the  chair 
man,  Slide!  1,  had  done  more  to  injure  him  in  the  recent 
campaign  than  any  other  man.  There  were  those  who 
thought  he  demeaned  himself  by  attending  the  Demo 
cratic  caucus  and  indorsing  the  Slidell  project.1 

It  was  charged  that  the  proposed  appropriation  of 
$30,000,000  was  to  be  used  to  bribe  Spanish  ministers 
to  sell  Cuba;  that  the  whole  project  was  motived  by 
the  desire  of  the  South  to  acquire  more  slave  territory ; 
and  that  Douglas  was  once  more  cultivating  the  South 
to  secure  the  presidency  in  1860.  The  first  of  these 
charges  has  never  been  proved ;  the  second  is  probably 
correct ;  but  the  third  is  surely  open  to  question.  As 
long  ago  as  Folk's  administration,  Douglas  had  ex 
pressed  his  belief  that  the  Pearl  of  the  Antilles  must 
some  day  fall  to  us ;  and  on  various  occasions  he  had 
advocated  the  annexation  of  Cuba,  with  the  consent 
of  Spain  and  the  inhabitants.  At  New  Orleans,  he 
had  been  called  upon  to  express  his  views  regarding 
the  acquisition  of  the  island ;  and  he  had  said,  without 
hesitation,  "It  is  folly  to  debate  the  acquisition  of 
Cuba.  It  naturally  belongs  to  the  American  continent. 
It  guards  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  Eiver,  which  is 
the  heart  of  the  American  continent  and  the  body  of 
the  American  nation/'  At  the  same  time  he  was  care- 

'Letcher  to   Crittenden;    Coleman.  Life  of  John  J.  Crittenden,  II, 
p.  171;  Hollister,  Coif  ax,  p.  124. 


THE  AFTERMATH  397 

ful  to  add  that  he  was  no  filibuster:  he  desired  Cuba 
only  upon  terms  honorable  to  all  concerned.1 

Subsequent  events  acquit  Douglas  of  truckling  to 
the  South  at  this  time.  No  doubt  he  would  have  been 
glad  to  let  bygones  be  bygones,  to  close  up  the  gap  of 
unpleasant  memories  between  himself  and  the  adpainis- 
tration,  and  to  restore  Democratic  harmony.  For 
Douglas  loved  his  party  and  honored  its  history.  To 
him  the  party  of  Jefferson  and  Jackson  was  insepa 
rably  linked  with  all  that  made  the  American  Common 
wealth  the  greatest  of  democracies.  Yet  where  men 
are  acutely  conscious  of  vital  differences  of  opinion, 
only  the  hourly  practice  of  self-control  can  prevent 
clashing.  Neither  Douglas  nor  his  opponents  were 
prepared  to  undergo  any  such  rigid  self -discipline. 

On  February  23d,  the  pent-up  feeling  broke  through 
all  barriers  and  laid  bare  the  thoughts  and  intents  of 
the  Democratic  factions.  The  Kansas  question  once 
more  recurring,  Brown  of  Mississippi  now  demanded 
adequate  protection  for  property;  that  is,  " protec 
tion  sufficient  to  protect  animate  property. ' '  Any  other 
protection  would  be  a  delusion  and  a  cheat.  If  the 
territorial  legislature  refused  such  protection,  he  for 
one  would  demand  it  of  Congress.  He  dissented  alto 
gether  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Senator  from  Illinois, 
that  by  non-action,  or  unfriendly  legislation  a  Terri 
tory  could  annul  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  and 
exclude  slavery.  That  was  mistaking  power  for  right. 
"What  I  want  to  know  is,  whether  you  will  interpose 
against  power  and  in  favor  of  right.  ...  If  the  Terri 
torial  Legislature  refuses  to  act,  will  you  act!  ....  If 
it  pass  laws  hostile  to  slavery,  will  you  annul  them, 

1  New  Orleans  Delta,  December  8,  1858. 


398  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

and  substitute  laws  favoring  slavery  in  their  stead  1" 
"What  I  and  my  people  ask  is  action;  positive,  un 
qualified  action.  Our  understanding  of  the  doctrine 
of  non-intervention  was,  that  you  were  not  to  inter 
vene  against  us,  but  I  never  understood  that  we  could 
have  any  compromise  or  understanding  here  which 
could  release  Congress  from  an  obligation  imposed 
on  it  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. "* 

Eeluctant  as  Douglas  must  have  been  to  accentuate 
the  differences  between  himself  and  the  Southern  Demo 
crats,  he  could  not  remain  silent,  for  silence  would  be 
misconstrued.  With  all  the  tact  which  he  could  muster 
out  of  a  not  too  abundant  store,  he  sought  to  conciliate, 
without  yielding  his  own  opinions.  It  was  a  futile 
effort.  At  the  very  outset  he  was  forced  to  deny  the 
right  of  slave  property  to  other  protection  than  com 
mon  property.  Thence  he  passed  with  wider  and 
wider  divergence  from  the  Southern  position  over  the 
familiar  ground  of  popular  sovereignty.  To  the  spe 
cific  demands  which  Brown  had  voiced,  he  replied  that 
Congress  had  never  passed  an  act  creating  a  criminal 
code  for  any  organized  Territory,  nor  any  law  pro 
tecting  any  species  of  property.  Congress  had  left 
these  matters  to  the  territorial  legislatures.  Why, 
then,  make  an  exception  of  slave  property?  The  Su 
preme  Court  had  made  no  such  distinction.  "I  know," 
said  Douglas,  in  a  tone  little  calculated  to  soothe  the 
feelings  of  his  opponents,  "I  know  that  some  gentle 
men  do  not  like  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention  as 
well  as  they  once  did.  It  is  now  becoming  fashionable 
to  talk  sneeringly  of  'your  doctrine  of  non-interven 
tion.'  Sir,  that  doctrine  has  been  a  fundamental 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  1243. 


THE  AFTERMATH  399 

article  in  the  Democratic  creed  for  years. "  "If  you 
repudiate  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention  and  form  a 
slave  code  by  act  of  Congress,  when  the  people  of  a 
Territory  refuse  it,  you  must  step  off  the  Democratic 
platform.  ...  I  tell  you,  gentlemen  of  the  South,  in  all 
candor,  I  do  not  believe  a  Democratic  candidate  can 
ever  carry  any  one  Democratic  State  of  the  North  on 
the  platform  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  govern 
ment  to  force  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  have  slavery 
when  they  do  not  want  it."1 

What  Brown  had  asserted  with  his  wonted  impul 
siveness,  was  then  reaffirmed  more  soberly  by  his  col 
league,  Jefferson^  Davis,  upon  whom  more  than  any 
other  Southerner  the  mantle  of  Calhoun  had  fallen. 
State  sovereignty  was  also  his  major  premise.  The 
Constitution  was  a  compact.  The  Territories  were 
common  property  of  the  States.  The  territorial 
legislatures  were  mere  instruments  through  which 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  "executed  its  trust 
in  relation  to  the  Territories."  If,  as  the  Senator 
from  Illinois  insisted,  Congress  had  granted  full  power 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territories  to  legislate  on  all 
subjects  not  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution,  then 
Congress  had  exceeded  its  authority.  Turning  to 
Douglas,  Davis  said,  "Now,  the  senator  asks,  will  you 
make  a  discrimination  in  the  Territories'?  I  say,  yes, 
I  would  discriminate  in  the  Territories  wherever  it 
is  needful  to  assert  the  right  of  citizens.  ...  I  have 
heard  many  a  siren's  song  on  this  doctrine  of  non 
intervention;  a  thing  shadowy  and  fleeting,  changing 
its  color  as  often  as  the  chameleon."2 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  1245. 
pp.  1247-1248. 


400  STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS 

When  Douglas  could  again  get  the  floor,  he  retorted 
sharply,  "The  senator  from  Mississippi  says,  if  I  am 
not  willing  to  stand  in  the  party  on  his  platform,  I 
can  go  out.  Allow  me  to  inform  him  that  I  stand  on 
the  platform,  and  those  that  jump  off  must  go  out  of 
the  party." 

Hot  words  now  passed  between  them.  Davis  spoke 
disdainfully  of  men  who  seek  to  build  up  a  political 
reputation  by  catering  to  the  prejudice  of  a  majority, 
to  exclude  the  property  of  the  minority.  And  Douglas 
retorted,  "I  despise  to  see  men  from  other  sections 
of  the  Union  pandering  to  a  public  sentiment  against 
what  I  conceive  to  be  common  rights  under  the  Con 
stitution."  " Holding  the  views  that  you  do,"  said 
Davis,  "you  would  have  no  chance  of  getting  the  vote 
of  Mississippi  to-day. ' '  The  senator  has  i '  confirmed  me 
in  the  belief  that  he  is  now  as  full  of  heresy  as  he  once 
was  of  adherence  to  the  doctrine  of  popular  sover 
eignty,  correctly  construed;  that  he  has  gone  back  to 
his  first  love  of  squatter  sovereignty,  a  thing  offensive 
to  every  idea  of  conservatism  and  sound  government." 

Davis  made  repeated  efforts  to  secure  an  answer  to 
the  question  whether,  in  the  event  that  slavery  should 
be  excluded  by  the  people  of  a  Territory  and  the  Su 
preme  Court  should  decide  against  such  action,  Doug 
las  would  maintain  the  rights  of  the  slave-holders. 
Douglas  replied,  somewhat  evasively,  that  when  the 
Supreme  Court  should  decide  upon  the  constitution 
ality  of  the  local  laws,  he  would  abide  by  the  decision. 
"That  is  not  the  point,"  rejoined  Davis  impatiently; 
"Congress  must  compel  the  Territorial  Legislature  to 
perform  its  proper  functions";  i.e.  actively  protect 
slave  property.  "Well,"  said  Douglas  with  exasperat- 


THE  AFTERMATH  401 

ing  coolness,  "on  that  point,  the  Senator  and  I  differ. 
If  the  Territorial  Legislature  will  not  pass  such  laws 
as  will  encourage  mules,  I  will  not  force  them  to  have 
them."  Again  Davis  insisted  that  his  question  had 
not  been  answered.  Douglas  repeated,  "I  will  vote 
against  any  law  by  Congress  attempting  to  interfere 
with  a  regulation  made  by  the  Territories,  with  respect 
to  any  kind  of  property  whatever,  whether  horses, 
mules,  negroes,  or  anything  else."1 

But  there  was  a  flaw  in  Douglas's  armor  which  Green 
of  Missouri  detected.  Had  the  Senator  from  Illinois 
not  urged  the  intervention  of  Congress  to  prevent 
polygamy  in  Utah?  "Not  at  all,"  replied  Douglas; 
'  '  the  people  of  that  Territory  were  in  a  state  of  rebel 
lion  against  the  Federal  authorities."  What  he  had 
urged  was  the  repeal  of  the  organic  act  of  the  Terri 
tory,  so  that  the  United  States  might  exercise  absolute 
jurisdiction  and  protect  property  in  that  region.  '  *  But 
if  the  people  of  a  Territory  took  away  property  in 
slaves,  were  they  not  also  defying  the  Federal  authori 
ties?"  persisted  Green.  Unquestionably  Congress 
might  revoke  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  Douglas  ad 
mitted;  but  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  act  was 
bottomed  upon  an  agreement.  There  was  a  distinct 
understanding  that  the  question  whether  territorial 
laws  affecting  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  were 
constitutional,  should  be  referred  to  the  Supreme 
Court.  "If  constitutional,  they  were  to  remain  in  force 
until  repealed  by  the  Territorial  Legislature;  if  not, 
they  were  to  become  void  not  by  action  of  Congress  but 
by  the  decision  of  the  court. '  '2  And  Douglas  quoted  at 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  1259. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1258. 


402  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

length  from  a  speech  by  Senator  Benjamin  in  1856,  to 
prove  his  point.  But  it  was  precisely  this  agreement  of 
1854,  which  was  now  being  either  repudiated  or  con 
strued  in  the  interest  of  the  South.  Jefferson  Davis 
frankly  deprecated  the  " great  hazard"  which  repre 
sentatives  from  his  section  ran  in  1854 ;  but,  he  added, 
"I  take  it  for  granted  my  friends  who  are  about  me 
must  have  understood  at  that  time  clearly  that  this  was 
the  mere  reference  of  a  right ;  and  that  if  decided  in  our 
favor,  congressional  legislation  would  follow  in  its 
train,  and  secure  to  us  the  enjoyment  of  the  right  thus 
defined."1 

The  wide  divergence  of  purpose  and  opinion  which 
this  debate  revealed,  dashed  any  hope  of  a  united 
Democratic  party  in  1860.  Men  who  looked  into  the 
future  were  sobered  by  the  prospect.  If  the  Demo 
cratic  party  were  rent  in  twain, — the  only  surviving 
national  party, — if  Northerners  and  Southerners  could 
no  longer  act  together  within  a  party  of  such  elastic 
principles,  what  hope  remained  for  the  Union?  The 
South  was  already  boldly  facing  the  inevitable.  Said 
Brown,  passionately,  "If  I  cannot  obtain  the  rights 
guaranteed  to  me  and  my  people  under  the  Constitu 
tion,  as  expounded  by  the  Supreme  Court,  then,  Sir,  I 
am  prepared  to  retire  from  the  concern.  .  .  .  When  our 
constitutional  rights  are  denied  us,  we  ought  to  retire 
from  the  Union.  ...  If  you  are  going  to  convert  the 
Union  into  a  masked  battery  from  behind  which  to 
make  war  on  me  and  my  property,  in  the  name  of  all 
the  gods  at  once,  why  should  I  not  retire  from  it?"2 

After  the  23d  of  February,  Douglas  neither  gave 

1  Globe,  35  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  1256. 
,  p.  1243. 


THE  AFTERMATH  403 

nor  expected  quarter  from  the  Southern  faction  led 
by  Jefferson  Davis.  So  far  from  avoiding  conflict,  he 
seems  rather  to  have  forced  the  fighting.  He  flaunted 
his  views  in  the  faces  of  the  fire-eaters.  Prudence 
would  have  suggested  silence,  when  a  convention  of 
Southern  States  met  at  Vicksburg  and  resolved  that 
"all  laws,  State  and  Federal,  prohibiting  the  African 
slave-trade,  ought  to  be  repealed,"1  but  Douglas,  who 
knew  something  of  the  dimensions  which  this  illicit 
traffic  had  already  assumed,  at  once  declared  himself 
opposed  to  it.  He  said  privately  in  a  conversation, 
which  afterwards  was  reported  by  an  anonymous  cor 
respondent  to  the  New  York  Tribune,  that  he  believed 
fifteen  thousand  Africans  were  brought  into  the  coun 
try  last  year.  He  had  seen  "with  his  own  eyes  three 
hundred  of  those  recently  imported  miserable  beings 
in  a  slave-pen  at  Vicksburg,  Mississippi,  and  also 
large  numbers  at  Memphis,  Tennessee."2 

In  a  letter  which  speedily  became  public  property, 
Douglas  said  that  he  would  not  accept  the  nomination 
of  the  Democratic  party,  if  the  convention  should 
interpolate  into  the  party  creed  "such  new  issues  as 
the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade,  or  a  congres 
sional  slave  code  for  the  Territories."3  And  to  leave 
no  doubt  as  to  his  attitude  he  wrote  a  second  letter, 
devoted  exclusively  to  this  subject;  it  also  found  its 
way,  as  the  author  probably  intended  it  should,  into 
the  newspapers.  He  opposed  the  revival  of  the  African 
slave-trade  because  it  was  abolished  by  one  of  the  com 
promises  which  had  made  the  Federal  Union  and  the 

Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  371. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  369-370. 

8  Letter  to  J.  B.  Dorr,  June  22,  1859 ;  Flint,  Douglas,  pp.  168-169. 


404  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

Constitution.  "In  accordance  with  this  compromise, 
I  am  irreconcilably  opposed  to  the  revival  of  the 
African  slave-trade,  in  any  form  and  under  any  cir 
cumstances.  ' n  How  deeply  this  unequivocal  condem 
nation  lacerated  the  feelings  of  the  South,  will  never 
be  known  until  the  economic  necessities  and  purposes 
of  the  large  plantation  owners  are  more  clearly  re 
vealed. 

The  captious  criticism  of  the  Freeport  doctrine  by 
Southerners  of  the  Calhoun-Jefferson  Davis  school 
was  less  damaging,  from  a  legal  point  of  view,  than 
the  sober  analysis  of  Lincoln.  The  emphasis  in  Lin 
coln's  famous  question  at  Freeport  fell  upon  the  word 
lawful:  "Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory, 
in  any  lawful  way,"  etc.  Douglas  had  replied  to  the 
question  of  legal  right  by  an  assertion  of  the  power 
of  the  people  of  the  Territories.  This  answer,  as  Lin 
coln  pointed  out  subsequently,  was  equivalent  to 
saying  that  "a  thing  may  be  lawfully  driven  away 
from  where  it  has  the  lawful  right  to  be."2  As  a  pre 
diction,  Douglas's  simple  statement,  that  if  the  people 
of  a  Territory  wanted  slavery  they  would  have  it,  and 
if  they  did  not,  they  would  not  let  it  be  forced  on  them, 
was  fully  justified  by  the  facts  of  American  history. 
It  has  been  characteristic  of  the  American  people  that, 
without  irreverence  for  law,  they  have  not  allowed  it 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  their  natural  development :  they 
have  not,  as  a  rule,  driven  rough-shod  over  law,  but 
have  quietly  allowed  undesirable  laws  to  fall  into  in 
nocuous  desuetude. 

1  Letter  to  J.  L.  Peyton,   August  2,  1859;    Sheahan,  Douglas,  pp. 
465-466. 

2  Speech  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  September,  1859;    see  Debates,  p.  250. 


THE  AFTERMATH  405 

But  such  an  answer  was  unworthy  of  a  man  who 
prided  himself  upon  his  fidelity  to  the  obligation  of 
the  Constitution  and  the  laws.  Feeling  the  full  force 
of  Lincoln's  inexorable  logic,1  but  believing  that  it 
was  bottomed  on  a  false  premise,  Douglas  endeavored 
to  give  his  Freeport  doctrine  its  proper  constitutional 
setting.  During  the  summer,  he  elaborated  an  his 
torical  and  constitutional  defense  of  popular  sover 
eignty.  The  editors  of  Harper's  Magazine  so  far  de 
parted  from  the  traditions  of  that  popular  periodical 
as  to  publish  this  long  and  tedious  essay  in  the  Sep 
tember  number.  Douglas  probably  calculated  that 
through  this  medium  better  than  almost  any  other,  he 
would  reach  those  readers  to  whom  Lincoln  made  his 
most  effective  appeal.2 

The  essay  bore  the  title  "The  Dividing  Line  between 
Federal  and  Local  Authority,"  with  the  sub-caption, 
" Popular  Sovereignty  in  the  Territories."  In  his 
interpretation  of  history,  the  author  proved  himself 
rather  a  better  advocate  than  historian.  He  had  tra 
versed  much  the  same  ground  in  his  speeches — and 
with  far  more  vivacity  and  force.  Douglas  searched 
the  colonial  records,  and  found — one  is  tempted  to  say, 
to  find — our  fathers  contending  unremittingly  for  "the 
inalienable  right,  when  formed  into  political  communi- 

1  On  his  return  to  Washington  after  the   debates,  Douglas  said  to 
Wilson,  "He  [Lincoln]  is  an  able  and  honest  man,  one  of  the  ablest  of 
the  nation.     I  have  been  in  Congress  sixteen  years,  and  there  is  not  a 
man  in  the  Senate  I  would  not  rather  encounter  in  debate."    Wilson, 
Slave  Power  in  America,  II,  p.  577. 

2  It  does  not  seem  likely  that  Douglas  hoped  to  reach  the  people  of 
the  South  through  Harper's  Magazine,  as  it  never  had  a  large  circulation 
south  of  Mason   nud    Dixon 's   line.      See    Smith,  Parties  and   Slavery, 
p.  292. 


406  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

ties,  to  exercise  exclusive  power  of  legislation  in  their 
local  legislatures  in  respect  to  all  things  affecting  their 
internal  polity — slavery  not  excepted."1 

Douglas  took  issue  with  the  fundamental  postulate 
of  Lincoln's  syllogism — that  a  Territory  is  the  mere 
creature  of  Congress  and  cannot  be  clothed  with 
powers  not  possessed  by  the  creator.  He  denied  that 
such  an  inference  could  be  drawn  from  that  clause  in 
the  Constitution  which  permits  Congress  to  dispose 
of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  for,  the  territory  or 
other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States.  Names 
were  deceptive.  The  word  "territory"  in  this  connec 
tion  was  not  used  in  a  political,  but  in  a  geographical 
sense.  The  power  of  Congress  to  organize  govern 
ments  for  the  Territories  must  be  inferred  rather  from 
the  power  to  admit  new  States  into  the  Union.  The 
Federal  government  possessed  only  expressly  dele 
gated  powers;  and  the  absence  of  any  explicit  au 
thority  to  interfere  in  local  territorial  affairs  must  be 
held  to  inhibit  any  exercise  of  such  power.  It  was 
on  these  grounds  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  ruled 
that  Congress  was  not  authorized  by  the  Constitution 
to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories. 

It  had  been  erroneously  held  by  some,  continued 
the  essayist,  that  the  Court  decided  in  the  Dred  Scott 
case  that  a  territorial  legislature  could  not  legislate  in 
respect  to  slave  property  like  other  property.  He 
understood  the  Court  to  speak  only  of  forbidden 
powers — powers  denied  to  Congress,  to  State  legis 
latures  and  to  territorial  legislatures  alike.  But  if 
ever  slavery  should  be  decided  to  be  one  of  these  for 
bidden  subjects  of  legislation,  then  the  conclusion 

1  narper's  Magazine,  XIX,  p.  527. 


THE  AFTERMATH  407 

would  be  inevitable  that  the  Constitution  established 
slavery  in  the  Territories  beyond  the  power  of  the 
people  to  control  it  by  law,  and  guaranteed  to  every 
citizen  the  right  to  go  there  and  be  protected  in  the 
enjoyment  of  his  slave  property;  then  every  member 
of  Congress  would  be  in  duty  bound  to  supply  adequate 
protection,  if  the  rights  of  property  should  be  invaded. 
Not  only  so,  but  another  conclusion  would  follow,— 
if  the  Constitution  should  be  held  to  establish  slavery 
in  the  Territories  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  to 
control  it, — Congress  would  be  bound  to  provide  ade 
quate  protection  for  slave  property  everywhere,  in  the 
States  as  well  as  in  the  Territories. 

Douglas  immediately  went  on  to  show  that  such  was 
not  the  decision  of  the  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case. 
The  Court  had  held  that  "the  right  of  property  in 
slaves  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Con 
stitution.  "  Yes,  but  where?  Why  in  that  provision 
which  speaks  of  persons  "held  to  service  or  labor  in 
one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof";  not  under  the 
Constitution,  not  under  the  laws  of  Congress,  Douglas 
emphasized,  but  under  the  laws  of  the  particular  State 
where  such  service  is  due.  And  so,  when  the  Court  de 
clared  that  "the  government,  in  express  terms,  is 
pledged  to  protect  it  [slave  property]  in  all  future 
time,"  it  added  "if  the  slave  escapes  from  his  owner." 
"This  is  the  only  contingency,"  Douglas  maintained, 
"in  which  the  Federal  Government  is  authorized,  re* 
quired,  or  permitted  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the 
States  or  Territories;  and  in  that  case  only  for  the 
purpose  of  *  guarding  and  protecting  the  owner  in  his 
rights'  to  reclaim  his  slave  property."  Slave-owners, 
therefore,  who  moved  with  their  property  to  a  Terri- 


408  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

tory,  must  hold  it  like  all  other  property,  subject  to 
local  law,  and  look  to  local  authorities  for  its  protec 
tion. 

One  other  question  remained:  was  the  word 
i ' State,"  as  used  in  the  clause  just  cited,  intended  to 
include  Territories?  Douglas  so  contended.  Other 
wise,  ' '  the  Territories  must  become  a  sanctuary  for  all 
fugitives  from  service  and  justice. "  In  numerous 
clauses  in  the  Constitution,  the  Territories  were  recog 
nized  as  States. 

Clever  as  this  reasoning  was,  it  clearly  was  not  a 
fair  exposition  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  the  case 
of  Dred  Scott.  If  the  Court  did  not  deny  the  right  of  a 
territorial  legislature  to  interfere  with  slave  prop 
erty,  it  certainly  left  that  proposition  open  to  fair  in 
ference  by  the  phrasing  and  emphasis  of  the  critical 
passages.  It  should  be  noted  that  Douglas,  in  quoting 
the  decision,  misplaced  the  decisive  clause  so  as  to 
bring  it  in  juxtaposition  to  the  reference  to  the  fugi 
tive  slave  clause  of  the  Constitution,  thus  redistribut 
ing  the  emphasis  and  confusing  the  real  significance 
of  the  foregoing  paragraph.1  Douglas  stated  subse 
quently  that  he  did  not  believe  the  decision  of  the  Court 
reached  the  power  of  a  territorial  legislature,  because 
there  was  no  territorial  legislature  in  the  record  nor 
any  allusion  to  one;  because  there  was  no  territorial 
enactment  before  the  Court;  and  because  there  was 
no  fact  in  the  case  alluding  to  or  connected  with 
territorial  legislation.2  All  this  was  perfectly  true. 

1  Compare  the  quotation  in  Harper's,  p.  531,  with  the  opinion  of  tho 
Court,  U.  S.  Supreme  Court  Eeports,  19  How.,  p.  720.  The  clause  be 
ginning  "And  if  the  Constitution  recognizes"  is  taken  from  its  own 
paragraph  and  put  in  the  middle  of  the  following  paragraph. 

3  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1   Sess.,  p.  2152.     This  statement  was  confirmed 


THE  AFTERMATH  409 

The  opinion  of  the  Court  was  obiter  dicens;  but 
the  Court  expressed  its  opinion  nevertheless.  As 
Lincoln  said,  men  knew  what  to  expect  of  the  Court 
when  a  territorial  act  prohibiting  slavery  came  before 
it.  Yet  this  was  what  Douglas  would  not  concede.  He 
would  not  admit  the  inference.  Congress  could  confer 
powers  upon  a  territorial  legislature  which  it  could 
not  itself  exercise.  The  dividing  line  between  Federal 
and  local  authority  was  so  drawn  as  to  permit  Con 
gress  to  institute  governments  with  legislative,  judicial, 
and  executive  functions  but  without  permitting  Con 
gress  to  exercise  those  functions  itself.  From  Douglas's 
point  of  view,  a  Territory  was  not  a  dependency  of  the 
Federal  government,  but  an  inchoate  Commonwealth, 
.endowed  with  many  of  the  attributes  of  sovereignty 
possessed  by  the  full-fledged  States. 

So  unusual  an  event  as  a  political  contribution  by  a 
prominent  statesman  to  a  popular  magazine,  created 
no  little  excitement.1  Attorney- General  Black  came  to 
the  defense  of  the  South  with  an  unsigned  contribu 
tion  to  the  Washington  Constitution,  the  organ  of  the 
administration.2  And  Douglas,  who  had  meantime 
gone  to  Ohio  to  take  part  in  the  State  campaign,  re 
plied  caustically  to  this  critique  in  his  speech  at 
Wooster,  September  16th.  Black  rejoined  in  a  pam 
phlet  under  his  own  name.  Whereupon  Douglas  re 
turned  to  the  attack  with  a  slashing  pamphlet,  which 
he  sent  to  the  printer  in  an  unfinished  form  and  which 
did  him  little  credit.3 

by  Reverdy  Johnson,  who  was  one  of  the  lawyers  that  argued  the 
case.  See  the  speech  of  Reverdy  Johnson,  June  7,  1860. 

1  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II.,  p.  374. 

2  Washington    Constitution,    September   10,    1859.     The   article   was 
afterward  published  in  a  collection  of  his  essays  and  speeches. 

•Flint,  Douglas,  p.  181. 


410  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

This  war  of  pamphlets  was  productive  of  no  results. 
Douglas  and  Black  were  wide  apart  upon  their  major 
premises,  and  diverged  inevitably  in  their  conclusions. 
Holding  fast  to  the  premise  that  a  Territory  was  not 
sovereign  but  a  "subordinate  dependency, ' '  Black 
ridiculed  the  attempts  of  Douglas  to  clothe  it,  not  with 
complete  sovereignty  but  with  "the  attributes  of  sover 
eignty/71  Then  Douglas  denounced  in  scathing  terms 
the  absurdity  of  Black's  assumption  that  property  in 
the  Territories  would  be  held  by  the  laws  of  the  State 
from  which  it  came,  while  it  must  look  for  redress  of 
wrongs  to  the  law  of  its  new  domicile.2 

The  Ohio  campaign  attracted  much  attention 
throughout  the  country,  not  only  because  the  guber 
natorial  candidates  were  thoroughgoing  representa 
tives  of  the  Republican  party  and  of  Douglas  Democ 
racy,  but  because  both  Lincoln  and  Douglas  were  again 
brought  into  the  arena.3  While  the  latter  did  not  meet 
in  joint  debate,  their  successive  appearance  at  Colum 
bus  and  Cincinnati  gave  the  campaign  the  aspect  of 
a  prolongation  of  the  Illinois  contest.  Lincoln  devoted 
no  little  attention  to  the  Harper's  Magazine  article, 
while  Douglas  defended  himself  and  his  doctrine 
against  all  comers.  There  was  a  disposition  in  many 
quarters  to  concede  that  popular  sovereignty,  whether 
theoretically  right  or  wrong,  would  settle  the  question 
of  slavery  in  the  Territories.4  Apropos  of  Douglas's 

1  One  of  the  most  interesting  commentaries  on  Black's  argument  is 
his  defense  of  the  people  of  Utah,  many  years  later,  against  the  Anti- 
Polygamy  Laws,  when  he  used  Douglas's  argument  without  the  slightest 
qualms.  See  Essays  and  Speeches,  pp.  603,  604,  609. 

a  Flint,  Douglas,  pp.    172-181  gives  extracts  from  these  pamphlets. 

8  Ehodes  History  of  United  States,  II,  p.  381. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  382. 


THE  AFTERMATH  411 

speech  at  Columbus,  the  New  York  Times  admitted 
that  at  least  his  principles  were  * '  definite ' '  and  uttered 
in  a  "frank,  gallant  and  masculine "  spirit;1  and  his 
speeches  were  deemed  of  enough  importance  to  be 
printed  entire  in  the  columns  of  this  Eepublican  jour 
nal.  "He  means  to  go  to  Charleston, > '  guessed  the 
editor  shrewdly,  "as  the  unmistakable  representa 
tive  of  the  Democratic  party  of  the  North  and  to  bring 
this  influence  to  bear  upon  Southern  delegates  as  the 
only  way  to  secure  their  interests  against  anti- slavery 
sentiment  represented  by  the  Eepublicans.  He  will 
claim  that  not  a  single  Northern  State  can  be  carried 
on  a  platform  more  pro-slavery  than  his.  The  Demo 
crats  of  the  North  have  yielded  all  they  will."2 

While  Douglas  was  in  Ohio,  he  was  saddened  by  the 
intelligence  that  Senator  Broderick  of  California,  his 
loyal  friend  and  staunch  supporter  in  the  Lecompton 
fight,  had  fallen  a  victim  to  the  animosity  of  the 
Southern  faction  in  his  State.  The  Washington  Con 
stitution  might  explain  his  death  as  an  affair  of  honor 
— he  was  shot  in  a  duel — but  intelligent  men  knew  that 
Broderick 's  assailant  had  desired  to  rid  Southern 
"  chivalry "  of  a  hated  political  opponent.3  A  month 
later,  on  the  night  of  October  16th,  John  Brown  of 
Kansas  fame  marshalled  his  little  band  of  eighteen 
men  and  descended  upon  the  United  States  arsenal  at 
Harper's  Ferry.  What  did  these  events  portend! 

1  New  York  Times,  September  9,  1859. 

*IUd.,  September  9,  1859. 

'Bhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  374-379. 


CHAPTEE  XVIII 
THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860 

Deeds  of  violence  are  the  inevitable  precursors  of 
an  approaching  war.  They  are  so  many  expressions 
of  that  estrangement  which  is  at  the  root  of  all  sec 
tional  conflicts.  The  raid  of  John  Brown  upon  Har 
per's  Ferry,  like  his  earlier  lawless  acts  in  Kansas,  was 
less  the  crime  of  an  individual  than  the  manifestation 
of  a  deep  social  unrest.  Occurring  on  the  eve  of  a 
momentous  presidential  election,  it  threw  doubts  upon 
the  finality  of  any  appeal  to  the  ballot.  The  antagon 
ism  between  North  and  South  was  such  as  to  make  an 
appeal  to  arms  seem  a  probable  last  resort.  The  poli 
tical  question  of  the  year  1860  was  whether  the  law- 
abiding  habit  of  the  American  people  and  the  tradi 
tional  mode  of  effecting  changes  in  governmental 
policy,  would  be  strong  enough  to  withstand  the  primi 
tive  instinct  to  decide  the  question  of  right  by  an 
appeal  to  might.  To  actors  in  the  drama  the  question 
assumed  this  simple,  concrete  form :  could  the  national 
Democratic  party  maintain  its  integrity  and  achieve 
another  victory  over  parties  which  were  distinctly 
sectional  ? 

The  passions  aroused  by  the  Harper's  Ferry  episode 
had  no  time  to  cool  before  Congress  met.  They  were 
again  inflamed  by  the  indorsement  of  Helper's  " Im 
pending  Crisis"  by  influential  Eepublicans.  As  the 
author  was  a  poor  white  of  North  Carolina  who  hated 
slavery  and  desired  to  prove  that  the  institution  was 

412 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  413 

inimical  to  the  interests  of  his  class,  the  book  was  re 
garded  by  slave-holders  as  an  incendiary  publication, 
conceived  in  the  same  spirit  as  John  Brown's  raid. 
The  contest  for  the  Speakership  of  the  House  turned 
upon  the  attitude  of  candidates  toward  this  book.  At 
the  North  "The  Impending  Crisis "  had  great  vogue, 
passing  through  many  editions.  All  events  seemed 
to  conspire  to  prevent  sobriety  of  judgment  and  mod 
eration  in  speech. 

From  a  legislative  point  of  view,  this  exciting 
session  of  Congress  was  barren  of  results.  The  para 
mount  consideration  was  the  approaching  party  con 
ventions.  What  principles  and  policies  would  control 
the  action  of  the  Democratic  convention  at  Charleston, 
depended  very  largely  upon  who  should  control  the 
great  body  of  delegates.  Early  in  January  various 
State  conventions  in  the  Northwest  expressed  their 
choice.  Illinois  took  the  lead  with  a  series  of  resolu 
tions  which  rang  clear  and  true  on  all  the  cardinal 
points  of  the  Douglas  creed.1  Within  the  next  sixty 
days  every  State  in  the  greater  Northwest  had  chosen 
delegates  to  the  national  Democratic  convention, 
pledged  to  support  the  nomination  of  Stephen  A.  Doug 
las.2  It  was  with  the  knowledge,  then,  that  he  spoke 
for  the  Democracy  of  the  Northwest  that  Douglas  took 
issue  with  those  Southern  senators  who  plumed  them 
selves  on  their  party  orthodoxy. 

In  a  debate  which  was  precipitated  by  a  resolution 
of  Senator  Pugh,  the  old  sores  were  rent  open.  Sen 
ator  Davis  of  Mississippi  was  particularly  irritating 
in  his  allusions  to  the  Freeport,  and  other  recent, 
heresies  of  the  Senator  from  Illinois.  In  the  give  and 

1  Flint,  Douglas,  pp.  205-207.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  207-209. 


414  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

take  which  followed,  Douglas  was  beset  behind  and 
before.  But  his  fighting  blood  was  up  and  he  promised 
to  return  blow  for  blow,  with  interest.  Let  every  man 
make  his  assault,  and  when  all  were  through,  he  would 
"fire  into  the  lump."1  "I  am  not  seeking  a  nomina 
tion,"  he  declared,  "I  am  willing  to  take  one  provided 
I  can  assume  it  on  principles  that  I  believe  to  be  sound ; 
but  in  the  event  of  your  making  a  platform  that  I  could 
not  conscientiously  execute  in  good  faith  if  I  were 
elected,  I  will  not  stand  upon  it  and  be  a  candidate." 
For  his  part  he  would  like  to  know  "who  it  is  that  has 
the  right  to  say  who  is  in  the  party  and  who  not?"  He 
believed  that  he  was  backed  by  two-thirds  of  the  De 
mocracy  of  the  United  States.  Did  one-third  of  the 
Democratic  party  propose  to  read  out  the  remaining 
two-thirds?  "I  have  no  grievances,  but  I  have  no  con 
cessions.  I  have  no  abandonment  of  position  or  prin 
ciple  ;  no  recantation  to  make  to  any  man  or  body  of 
men  on  earth."2 

Some  days  later  Douglas  made  it  equally  clear  that 
he  had  no  recantation  to  make  for  the  sake  of  Repub 
lican  support.  Speaking  of  the  need  of  some  measure 
by  which  the  States  might  be  protected  against  acts 
of  violence  like  the  Harper's  Ferry  affair,  he  roundly 
denounced  that  outrage  as  "the  natural,  logical,  in 
evitable  result  of  the  doctrines  and  teachings  of  the 
Eepublican  party,  as  explained  and  enforced  in  their 
platform,  their  partisan  presses,  their  pamphlets  and 
books,  and  especially  in  the  speeches  of  their  leaders 
in  and  out  of  Congress. '  '3  True,  they  disavowed  the  act 
of  John  Brown,  but  they  should  also  repudiate  and 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  421. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  424-425.  » Ibid.,  p.  553. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  415 

denounce  the  doctrines  and  teachings  which  produced 
the  act.  Fraternal  peace  was  possible  only  upon  "that 
good  old  golden  principle  which  teaches  all  men  to 
mind  their  own  business  and  let  their  neighbors' 
alone."  When  men  so  act,  the  Union  can  endure  for 
ever  as  the  fathers  made  it,  composed  of  free  and  slave 
States.1  "Then  the  senator  is  really  indifferent  to 
slavery,  as  he  is  reported  to  have  said?"  queried  Fes- 
senden.  "Sir,"  replied  Douglas,  "I  hold  the  doctrine 
that  a  statesman  will  adapt  his  laws  to  the  wants,  condi 
tions,  and  interests  of  the  people  to  be  governed  by 
them.  Slavery  may  be  very  essential  in  one  climate  and 
totally  useless  in  another.  If  I  were  a  citizen  of  Louis 
iana  I  would  vote  for  retaining  and  maintaining 
slavery,  because  I  believe  the  good  of  the  people  would 
require  it.  As  a  citizen  of  Illinois  I  am  utterly  opposed 
to  it,  because  our  interests  would  not  be  promoted  by 
it."2 

The  lines  upon  which  the  Charleston  convention 
would  divide,  were  sharply  drawn  by  a  series  of  resolu 
tions  presented  to  the  Senate  by  Jefferson  Davis.  They 
were  intended  to  serve  as  an  ultimatum,  and  they  were 
so  understood  by  Northern  Democrats.  They  were 
deliberately  wrought  out  in  conference  as  the  final  ex 
pression  of  Southern  conviction.  In  explicit  language 
the  right  of  either  Congress  or  a  territorial  legisla 
ture  to  impair  the  constitutional  right  of  property  in 
slaves,  was  denied.  In  case  of  unfriendly  legislation, 
it  was  declared  to  be  the  duty  of  Congress  to  provide 
adequate  protection  to  slave  property.  Popular  sover 
eignty  was  completely  discarded  by  the  assertion  that 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  554-555. 
*Ibld.,  p.  559. 


416  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

the  people  of  a  Territory  might  pass  upon  the  question 
of  slavery  only  when  they  formed  a  State  constitution.1 

As  the  delegates  to  the  Democratic  convention  began 
to  gather  in  the  latter  part  of  April,  the  center  of  poli 
tical  interest  shifted  from  Washington  to  Charleston. 
Here  the  battle  between  the  factions  was  to  be  fought 
out,  but  without  the  presence  of  the  real  leaders.  The 
advantages  of  organization  were  with  the  Douglas  men. 
The  delegations  from  the  Northwest  were  devoted, 
heart  and  soul,  to  their  chief.  As  they  passed  through 
the  capital  on  their  journey  to  the  South,  they  gathered 
around  him  with  noisy  demonstrations  of  affection ;  and 
when  they  continued  on  their  way,  they  were  more  de 
termined  than  ever  to  secure  his  nomination.2  From  the 
South,  too,  every  Douglas  man  who  was  likely  to  carry 
weight  in  his  community,  was  brought  to  Charleston 
to  labor  among  the  Ultras  of  his  section.3  The  Douglas 
headquarters  in  Hibernian  Hall  bore  witness  to  the 
business-like  way  in  which  his  candidacy  was  being 
promoted.  Not  the  least  striking  feature  within  the 
committee  rooms  was  the  ample  supply  of  Sheahan's 
Life  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  fresh  from  the  press.4 

Eecognized  leader  of  the  Douglas  forces  was  Colonel 
Kichardson  of  Illinois,  a  veteran  in  convention  war 
fare,  seasoned  by  years  of  congressional  service  and 
by  long  practice  in  managing  men.5  It  was  he  who 
had  led  the  Douglas  cohorts  in  the  Cincinnati  conven 
tion.  The  memory  of  that  defeat  still  rankled,  and  he 
was  not  disposed  to  yield  to  like  contingencies.  Indeed, 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  658.     For  the  final  version,  see  p.  935. 

"Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860,  p.  59. 

'Ibid.,  p.  29.  'Ibid.,  p.  5.  'Ibid.,  pp.  9  and  20. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  417 

the  spirit  of  the  delegates  from  the  Northwest, — and 
they  seemed  likely  to  carry  the  other  Northern  dele 
gates  with  them, — was  offensively  aggressive ;  and  their 
demonstrations  of  enthusiasm  assumed  a  minatory  as 
pect,  as  they  learned  of  the  presence  of  Slidell,  Bigler, 
and  Bright,  and  witnessed  the  efforts  of  the  administra 
tion  to  defeat  the  hero  of  the  Lecompton  fight.1 

Those  who  observed  the  proceedings  of  the  conven 
tion  could  not  rid  themselves  of  the  impression  that 
opposing  parties  were  wrestling  for  control,  so  bitter 
and  menacing  was  the  interchange  of  opinion.  It  was 
matter  of  common  report  that  the  Southern  delega 
tions  would  withdraw  if  Douglas  were  nominated.2 
Equally  ominous  was  the  rumor  that  Eichardson  was 
authorized  to  withdraw  the  name  of  Douglas,  if  the 
platform  adopted  should  advocate  the  protection  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories.3  The  temper  of  the  conven 
tion  was  such  as  to  preclude  an  amicable  agreement, 
even  if  Douglas  withdrew. 

The  advantages  of  compact  organization  and  con 
scious  purpose  were  apparent  in  the  first  days  of  the 
convention.  At  every  point  the  Douglas  men  forced 
the  fighting.  On  the  second  day,  it  was  voted  that 
where  a  delegation  had  not  been  instructed  by  a  State 
convention  how  to  give  its  vote,  the  individual  dele 
gates  might  vote  as  they  pleased.  This  rule  would 
work  to  the  obvious  advantage  of  Douglas.4  On  the 
third  day,  the  convention  refused  to  admit  the  contest- 

1Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860,  pp.  12-13. 

*im.,  p.  8.  *Ibid.,  p.  36. 

4  Especially  in  securing  votes  from  the  delegations  of  Massachusetts, 
Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey,  where  the  influence  of  the  administration 
was  strong.     Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860,  pp.  25-28. 
27 


418  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

ing  delegations  from  New  York  and  Illinois,  repre 
sented  by  Fernando  Wood  and  Isaac  Cook  respect 
ively.1 

Meantime  the  committee  on  resolutions,  composed 
of  one  delegate  from  each  State,  was  in  the  throes  of 
platform-making.  Both  factions  had  agreed  to  frame 
a  platform  before  naming  a  candidate.  But  here,  as 
in  the  convention,  the  possibility  of  amiable  discussion 
and  mutual  concession  was  precluded.  The  Southern 
delegates  voted  in  caucus  to  hold  to  the  Davis  resolu 
tions;  the  Northern,  with  equal  stubbornness,  clung 
to  the  well-known  principles  of  Douglas.  On  the  fifth 
day  of  the  convention,  April  27th,  the  committee  pre 
sented  a  majority  report  and  two  minority  reports. 
The  first  was  essentially  an  epitome  of  the  Davis  reso 
lutions  ;  the  second  reaffirmed  the  Cincinnati  platform, 
at  the  same  time  pledging  the  party  to  abide  by  the 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  those  questions  of 
constitutional  law  which  should  affect  the  rights  of 
property  in  the  States  or  Territories;  and  the  third 
report  simply  reaffirmed  the  Cincinnati  platform  with 
out  additional  resolutions.2  The  defense  of  the  main 
minority  report  fell  to  Payne  of  Ohio.  In  a  much  more 
conciliatory  spirit  than  Douglas  men  had  hitherto 
shown,  he  assured  the  Southern  members  of  the  con 
vention  that  every  man  who  had  signed  the  report  felt 
that  "upon  the  result  of  our  deliberations  and  the 
action  of  this  convention,  in  all  human  probability, 
depended  the  fate  of  the  Democratic  party  and  the 
destiny  of  the  Union.''  The  North  was  devoted  to  the 
principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  but  "we  ask  nothing 

1  Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860,  p.  36. 
-  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  pp.  283-288. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  419 

for  the  people  of  the  territories  but  what  the  Consti 
tution  allows  them."1  The  argument  of  Payne  was 
cogent  and  commended  itself  warmly  to  Northern  dele 
gates;  but  it  struck  Southern  ears  as  a  tiresome  re 
iteration  of  arguments  drawn  from  premises  which 
they  could  not  admit. 

It  was  Yancey  of  Alabama,  chief  among  fire-eaters, 
who,  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  warmed  the 
cockles  of  the  Southern  heart.  Gifted  with  all  the 
graces  of  Southern  orators,  he  made  an  eloquent  plea 
for  Southern  rights.  Protection  was  what  the  South 
demanded:  protection  in  their  constitutional  rights 
and  in  their  sacred  rights  of  property.  The  proposi 
tion  contained  in  the  minority  report  would  ruin  the 
South.  "You  acknowledged  that  slavery  did  not  exist 
by  the  law  of  nature  or  by  the  law  of  God — that  it  only 
existed  by  State  law ;  that  it  was  wrong,  but  that  you 
were  not  to  blame.  That  was  your  position,  and  it  was 
wrong.  If  you  had  taken  the  position  directly  that 
slavery  was  right,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  ....  you 
would  have  triumphed,  and  anti- slavery  would  now 
have  been  dead  in  your  midst.  ...  I  say  it  in  no  disre 
spect,  but  it  is  a  logical  argument  that  your  admission 
that  slavery  is  wrong  has  been  the  cause  of  all  this 
discord.  "2 

These  words  brought  Senator  Pugh  to  his  feet. 
Wrought  to  a  dangerous  pitch  of  excitement,  he  thanked 
God  that  a  bold  and  honest  man  from  the  South  had 
at  last  spoken,  and  had  told  the  whole  of  the  Southern 
demands.  The  South  demanded  now  nothing  less  than 
that  Northern  Democrats  should  declare  slavery  to  be 

1  Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  446. 
p.  448. 


420  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

right.  "Gentlemen  of  the  South/'  he  exclaimed,  "you 
mistake  us — you  mistake  us — we  will  not  do  it."1  The 
convention  adjourned  before  Pugh  had  finished;  but 
in  the  evening  he  told  the  Southern  delegates  plainly 
that  Northern  Democrats  were  not  children  at  the 
bidding  of  the  South.  If  the  gentlemen  from  the  South 
could  stay  only  on  the  terms  they  proposed,  they  must 
go.  For  once  the  hall  was  awed  into  quiet,  for  Senator 
Pugh  stood  close  to  Douglas  and  the  fate  of  the  party 
hung  in  the  balance.2 

Sunday  intervened,  but  the  situation  remained  un 
changed.  Gloom  settled  down  upon  the  further  de 
liberations  of  the  convention.  On  Monday,  the  minority 
report  (the  Douglas  platform)  was  adopted  by  a  vote 
of  165  to  138.  Thereupon  the  chairman  of  the  Alabama 
delegation  protested  and  announced  the  formal  with 
drawal  of  his  State  from  the  convention.  The  crisis 
had  arrived.  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  South  Carolina, 
Florida,  Texas,  and  Arkansas  followed  in  succession, 
with  valedictories  which  seemed  directed  less  to  the 
convention  than  to  the  Union.  Indeed,  more  than  one 
face  blanched  at  the  probable  significance  of  this  seces 
sion.  Southerners  of  the  Yancey  following,  however, 
were  jubilant  and  had  much  to  say  about  an  independ 
ent  Southern  Republic.3 

On  the  following  day,  what  Yancey  scornfully  dubbed 
the  "Rump  Convention,"  proceeded  to  ballot,  having 
first  voted  that  two-thirds  of  the  full  vote  of  the  con 
vention  should  be  necessary  to  nominate.  On  the  first 
ballot,  Douglas  received  1451/2?  Hunter  of  Virginia  42, 
Guthrie  of  Kentucky  SS1/^  and  the  remaining  thirty 

1  Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860,  p.  49. 
zIUd.,  p.  50.  *Ibid.,  pp.  74-75. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  421 

were  divided  among  several  candidates.  As  202  votes 
were  necessary  for  a  choice,  the  hopelessness  of  the 
outlook  was  apparent  to  all.  Nevertheless,  the  ballot 
ing  continued,  the  vote  of  Douglas  increasing  on  four 
ballots  to  1521/2-  After  the  thirty-sixth  ballot,  he  failed 
to  command  more  than  15iyL>.  In  all,  fifty-seven  ballots 
were  taken.1  On  the  tenth  day  of  the  convention,  it 
was  voted  to  adjourn  to  meet  at  Baltimore,  on  the  18th 
of  June. 

The  followers  of  Douglas  left  Charleston  with  wrath 
in  their  hearts.  Chagrin  and  disappointment  alter 
nated  with  bitterness  and  resentment  toward  their 
Southern  brethren.  Moreover,  contact  with  the  South, 
so  far  from  having  lessened  their  latent  distrust  of  its 
culture  and  institutions,  had  widened  the  gulf  between 
the  sections.  Such  speeches  as  that  of  Goulden  of 
Georgia,  who  had  boldly  advocated  the  re-opening  of 
the  African  slave-trade,  saying  coarsely  that  "the 
African  slave-trade  man  is  the  Union  man — the  Chris 
tian  man,"  caused  a  certain  ethical  revolt  in  the  feel 
ings  of  men,  hitherto  not  particularly  susceptible  to 
moral  appeals  on  the  slavery  question.2  Added  to  all 
these  cumulative  grievances  was  the  uncomfortable 
probability,  that  the  next  President  was  about  to  be 
nominated  in  the  Eepublican  convention  at  Chicago. 

What  were  the  feelings  of  the  individual  who  had 
been  such  a  divisive  force  in  the  Charleston  conven 
tion?  The  country  was  not  long  left  in  doubt.  Douglas 
was  quite  ready  to  comment  upon  the  outcome ;  and  it 
needed  only  the  bitter  arraignment  of  his  theories  by 
Davis,  to  bring  him  armed  cap-a-pie  into  the  arena. 

1  Proceedings  of  the  National  Democratic  Convention,  pp.  46-53. 
aHalstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860,  p.  78. 


422  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

Aided  by  his  friend  Pugh,  who  read  long  extracts 
from  letters  and  speeches,  Douglas  made  a  systematic 
review  of  Democratic  principles  and  policy  since  1848. 
His  object,  of  course,  was  to  demonstrate  his  own  con 
sistency,  and  at  the  same  time  to  convict  his  critics  of 
apostasy  from  the  party  creed.  There  was,  inevit 
ably,  much  tiresome  repetition  in  all  this.  It  was  when 
he  directed  his  remarks  to  the  issues  at  Charleston  that 
Douglas  warmed  to  his  subject.  He  refused  to  recog 
nize  the  right  of  a  caucus  of  the  Senate  or  of  the  House, 
to  prescribe  new  tests,  to  draft  party  platforms.  That 
was  a  task  reserved,  under  our  political  system,  for 
national  conventions,  made  up  of  delegates  chosen  by 
the  people.  Tried  by  the  standard  of  the  only  Demo 
cratic  organization  competent  to  pronounce  upon  ques 
tions  of  party  faith,  he  was  no  longer  a  heretic,  no 
longer  an  outlaw  from  the  Democratic  party,  no  longer 
a  rebel  against  the  Democratic  organization.  "The 
party  decided  at  Charleston  also,  by  a  majority  of  the 
whole  electoral  college,  that  I  was  the  choice  of  the 
Democratic  party  of  America  for  the  Presidency  of 
the  United  States,  giving  me  a  majority  of  fifty  votes 
over  all  other  candidates  combined;  and  yet  my  De 
mocracy  is  questioned !"  "But,"  he  added,  and  there 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  his  sincerity,  "my  friends  who 
know  me  best  know  that  I  have  no  personal  desire  or 
wish  for  the  nomination;  ....  know  that  my  name 
never  would  have  been  presented  at  Charleston,  except 
for  the  attempt  to  proscribe  me  as  a  heretic,  too  un 
sound  to  be  the  chairman  of  a  committee  in  this  body, 
where  I  have  held  a  seat  for  so  many  years  without 
a  suspicion  resting  on  my  political  fidelity.  I  was 
forced  to  allow  my  name  to  go  there  in  self-defense; 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  423 

and  I  will  now  say  that  had  any  gentleman,  friend  or 
foe,  received  a  majority  of  that  convention  over  me, 
the  lightning  would  have  carried  a  message  withdraw 
ing  my  name  from  the  convention."1 

Douglas  was  ready  to  acquit  his  colleagues  in  the 
Senate  of  a  purpose  to  dissolve  the  Union,  but  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  assert  that  such  principles  as  Yancey 
had  advocated  at  Charleston  would  lead  '  *  directly  and 
inevitably"  to  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  Why  was 
the  South  so  eager  to  repudiate  the  principle  of  non 
intervention?  By  it  they  had  converted  New  Mexico 
into  slave  Territory ;  by  it,  in  all  probability,  they  would 
extend  slavery  into  the  northern  States  of  Mexico, 
when  that  region  should  be  acquired.  "Why,"  he 
asked,  "are  you  not  satisfied  with  these  practical  re 
sults?  The  only  difference  of  opinion  is  on  the  ju 
dicial  question,  about  which  we  agreed  to  differ — which 
we  never  did  decide ;  because,  under  the  Constitution, 
no  tribunal  on  earth  but  the  Supreme  Court  could 
decide  it."  To  commit  the  Democratic  party  to  inter 
vention  was  to  make  the  party  sectional  and  to  invite 
never-ceasing  conflict.  * '  Intervention,  North  or  South, 
means  disunion;  non-intervention  promises  peace, 
fraternity,  and  perpetuity  to  the  Union,  and  to  all  our 
cherished  institutions."2 

The  challenge  contained  in  these  words  was  not  per 
mitted  to  pass  unanswered.  Davis  replied  with  offen 
sive  references  to  the  "swelling  manner"  and  "egre 
gious  vanity"  of  the  Senator  from  Illinois.  He  resented 
such  dictation.3  On  the  following  day,  May  17th,  an 
exciting  passage-at-arms  occurred  between  these  rep- 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  App.,  p.  313. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  316.          8  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  2120. 


424  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

resentatives  of  the  Northwest  and  the  Southwest. 
Douglas  repeated  his  belief  that  disunion  was  the 
prompting  motive  which  broke  up  the  Charleston  con 
vention.  Davis  resented  the  insinuation,  with  fervent 
protestations  of  affection  for  the  Union  of  the  States. 
It  was  the  Senator  from  Illinois,  who,  in  his  pursuit  of 
power,  had  prevented  unanimity,  by  trying  to  plant 
his  theory  upon  the  party.  The  South  would  have  no 
more  to  do  with  the  "  rickety,  double-construed  plat 
form"  of  1856.  "The  fact  is,"  said  Davis,  "I  have  a 
declining  respect  for  platforms.  I  would  sooner  have 
an  honest  man  on  any  sort  of  a  rickety  platform  you 
could  construct,  than  to  have  a  man  I  did  not  trust  on 
the  best  platform  which  could  be  made.  A  good  plat 
form  and  an  honest  man  on  it  is  what  we  want."1 
Douglas  reminded  his  opponent  sharply  that  the  bolters 
at  Charleston  seceded,  not  on  the  candidate,  but  on 
the  platform.  "If  the  platform  is  not  a  matter  of 
much  consequence,  why  press  that  question  to  the  dis 
ruption  of  the  party  I  Why  did  you  not  tell  us  in  the 
beginning  of  this  debate  that  the  whole  fight  was 
against  the  man,  and  not  upon  the  platform?"2 

In  the  interval  between  the  Charleston  and  the  Balti 
more  conventions,  the  Davis  resolutions  were  pressed 
to  a  vote  in  the  Senate,  with  the  purpose  of  shaping 
party  opinion.  They  passed  by  votes  which  gave  a 
deceptive  appearance  of  Democratic  unanimity.  Only 
Senator  Pugh  parted  company  with  his  Democratic 
colleagues  on  the  crucial  resolution ;  yet  he  represented 
the  popular  opinion  at  the  North.3  The  futility  of 
these  resolutions,  so  far  as  practical  results  were  con- 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  2155.  2  Ibid.,  p.  2156. 

•Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  IT,  p.  456. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  425 

cerned,  was  demonstrated  by  the  adoption  of  Cling- 
man's  resolution,  that  the  existing  condition  of  the 
Territories  did  not  require  the  intervention  of  Congress 
for  the  protection  of  property  in  slaves.1  In  other 
words,  the  South  was  insisting  upon  rights  which  were 
barren  of  practical  significance.  Slave-holders  were 
insisting  upon  the  right  to  carry  their  slaves  where 
local  conditions  were  unfavorable,  and  where  there 
fore  they  had  no  intention  of  going.2 

The  nomination  of  Lincoln  rather  than  Seward,  at 
the  Eepublican  convention  in  Chicago,  was  a  bitter 
disappointment  to  those  who  felt  that  the  latter  was 
the  real  leader  of  the  party  of  moral  ideas,  and  that 
the  rail-splitter  was  simply  an  " available"  candidate.3 
But  Douglas,  with  keener  insight  into  the  character  of 
Lincoln,  said  to  a  group  of  Republicans  at  the  Capitol, 
"Gentlemen,  you  have  nominated  a  very  able  and  a 
very  honest  man. '  '*  For  the  candidate  of  the  new  Con 
stitutional  Union  party,  which  had  rallied  the  politi 
cally  unattached  of  various  opinions  in  a  convention 
at  Baltimore,  Douglas  had  no  such  words  of  praise, 
though  he  recognized  John  Bell  as  a  Unionist  above 
suspicion  and  as  an  estimable  gentleman. 

These  nominations  rendered  it  still  less  prudent  for 
Northern  Democrats  to  accept  a  candidate  with 
stronger  Southern  leanings  than  Douglas.  No  North 
ern  Democrat  could  carry  the  Northern  States  on  a 
Southern  platform;  and  no  Southern  Democrat  would 
accept  a  nomination  on  the  Douglas  platform.  Unless 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  2344. 

2  See  Wise,  Life  of  Henry  A.  Wise,  pp.  264-265. 
•Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  472. 
4  Ibid.,  p.  472. 


426  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

some  middle  ground  could  be  found, — and  the  debates 
in  the  Senate  had  disclosed  none, — the  Democrats  of 
the  North  were  bound  to  adhere  to  Douglas  as  their 
first  and  only  choice  in  the  Baltimore  convention. 

When  the  delegates  reassembled  in  Baltimore,  the 
factional  quarrel  had  lost  none  of  its  bitterness.  Al 
most  immediately  the  convention  fell  foul  of  a  compli 
cated  problem  of  organization.  Some  of  the  original 
delegates,  who  had  withdrawn  at  Charleston,  desired 
to  be  re-admitted.  From  some  States  there  were  con 
testing  delegations,  notably  from  Louisiana  and  Ala 
bama,  where  the  Douglas  men  had  rallied  in  force. 
Those  anti-Douglas  delegates  who  were  still  members 
of  the  convention,  made  every  effort  to  re-admit  the 
delegations  hostile  to  him.  The  action  of  the  conven 
tion  turned  upon  the  vote  of  the  New  York  delegation, 
which  would  be  cast  solidly  either  for  or  against  the 
admission  of  the  contesting  delegations.  For  three 
days  the  fate  of  Douglas  was  in  the  hands  of  these 
thirty-five  New  Yorkers,  in  whom  the  disposition  to 
bargain  was  not  wanting.1  It  was  at  this  juncture  that 
Douglas  wrote  to  Dean  Richmond,  the  Deus  ex  macliina 
in  the  delegation,2  "If  my  enemies  are  determined  to 
divide  and  destroy  the  Democratic  party,  and  perhaps 
the  country,  rather  than  see  me  elected,  and  if  the  unity 
of  the  party  can  be  preserved,  and  its  ascendancy  per 
petuated  by  dropping  my  name  and  uniting  upon  some 
reliable  non-intervention  and  Union-loving  Democrat, 
I  beseech  you,  in  consultation  with  my  friends,  to  pur 
sue  that  course  which  will  save  the  country,  without 
regard  to  my  individual  interests.  I  mean  all  this 

'Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860,  pp.  227-228. 
2  Ibid.,  pp.  194-195. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  427 

letter  implies.  Consult  freely  and  act  boldly  for  the 
right.  "* 

It  was  precisely  the  "if  V  in  this  letter  that  gave  the 
New  Yorkers  most  concern.  Where  was  the  candi 
date  who  possessed  these  qualifications  and  who  would 
be  acceptable  to  the  South?  On  the  fifth  day  of  the 
convention,  the  contesting  Douglas  delegations  were 
admitted.  The  die  was  cast.  A  portion  of  the  Vir 
ginia  delegation  then  withdrew,  and  their  example 
was  followed  by  nearly  all  the  delegates  from  North 
Carolina,  Tennessee,  Kentucky  and  Maryland.  If  the 
first  withdrawal  at  Charleston  presaged  the  secession 
of  the  cotton  States  from  the  Union,  this  pointed  to 
the  eventual  secession  of  the  border  States. 

On  June  23d,  the  convention  proceeded  to  ballot. 
Douglas  received  1731/2  votes ;  Guthrie  10 ;  and  Breck- 
inridge  5;  scattering  3.  On  the  second  ballot,  Doug 
las  received  all  but  thirteen  votes;  whereupon  it  was 
moved  and  carried  unanimously  with  a  tremendous 
shout  that  Douglas,  having  received  "two-thirds  of 
all  votes  given  in  this  convention, "  should  be  the  nom 
inee  of  the  party.2  Colonel  Eichardson  then  begged 
leave  to  have  the  Secretary  read  a  letter  from  Senator 
Douglas.  He  had  carried  it  in  his  pocket  for  three 
days,  but  the  course  of  the  bolters,  he  said,  had  pre 
vented  him  from  using  it.3  The  letter  was  of  the  same 
tenor  as  that  written  to  Dean  Eichmond.  There  is 
little  likelihood  that  an  earlier  acquaintance  with  its 
contents  would  have  changed  the  course  of  events, 

*The  letter  was  written  at  Washington,  June  22d,  at  9:30  a.  m. 
2Stanwood,   History  of  the  Presidency,  p.   286;   Halstead,  Political 
Conventions  of  1860,  p.  211. 
8  Halstead,  p.  216. 


428  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

since  so  long  as  the  platform  stood  unaltered,  the 
choice  of  Douglas  was  a  logical  and  practical  neces 
sity.  Douglas  and  the  platform  were  one  and  in 
separable. 

Meantime  the  bolters  completed  their  destructive 
work  by  organizing  a  separate  convention  in  Baltimore, 
by  adopting  the  report  of  the  majority  in  the  Charles 
ton  convention  as  their  platform,  and  by  nominating 
John  C.  Breckinridge  as  their  candidate  for  the 
presidency.  Lane  of  Oregon  was  named  for  the  second 
place  on  the  ticket  for  much  the  same  reason  that 
Fitzpatrick  of  Alabama,  and  subsequently  Herschel 
V.  Johnson  of  Georgia,  was  put  upon  the  Douglas 
ticket.  Both  factions  desired  to  demonstrate  that  they 
were  national  Democrats,  with  adherents  in  all  sec 
tions.  In  his  letter  of  acceptance  Douglas  rang  the 
changes  on  the  sectional  character  of  the  doctrine  of 
intervention  either  for  or  against  slavery.  "If  the 
power  and  duty  of  Federal  interference  is  to  be  con 
ceded,  two  hostile  sectional  parties  must  be  the  inevit 
able  result — the  one  inflaming  the  passions  and  ambi 
tions  of  the  North,  the  other  of  the  South.''1  Indeed, 
his  best, — his  only, — chance  of  success  lay  in  his  power 
to  appeal  to  conservative,  Union-loving  men,  North 
and  South.  This  was  the  secret  purpose  of  his  fre 
quent  references  to  Clay  and  Webster,  who  were  in 
voked  as  supporters  of  "the  essential,  living  principle 
of  1850";  i.e.  his  own  doctrine  of  non-intervention 
by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Territories.  But  the 
Constitutional  Union  party  was  quite  as  likely  to  at 
tract  the  remnant  of  the  old  Whig  party  of  Clay  and 
Webster. 

1  Flint,  Douglas,  pp.  213-215. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  429 

Douglas  began  his  campaign  in  excellent  spirits.  His 
only  regret  was  that  he  had  been  placed  in  a  position 
where  he  had  to  look  on  and  see  a  fight  without  taking 
a  hand  in  it.1  The  New  York  Times,  whose  editor 
followed  the  campaign  of  Douglas  with  the  keenest 
interest,  without  indorsing  him,  frankly  conceded 
that  popular  sovereignty  had  a  very  strong  hold  upon 
the  instinct  of  nine-tenths  of  the  American  people.2 
Douglas  wrote  to  his  Illinois  confidant  in  high  spirits 
after  the  ratification  meeting  in  New  York.3  Conced 
ing  South  Carolina  and  possibly  Mississippi  to  Breck- 
inridge,  and  the  border  slave  States  to  Bell,  he  ex 
pressed  the  firm  conviction  that  he  would  carry  the 
rest  of  the  Southern  States  and  enough  free  States 
to  be  elected  by  the  people.  Richardson  had  just  re 
turned  from  New  England,  equally  confident  that 
Douglas  would  carry  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Rhode 
Island,  and  Connecticut.  If  the  election  should  go  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  Douglas  calculated  that 
Lincoln,  Bell,  and  he  would  be  the  three  candidates. 
In  any  event,  he  was  sure  that  Breckinridge  and  Lane 
had  "no  show."  He  enjoined  his  friends  everywhere 
to  treat  the  Bell  and  Everett  men  in  a  friendly  way 
and  to  cultivate  good  relations  with  them,  "for  they 
are  Union  men."  But,  he  added,  "we  can  have  no 
partnership  with  the  Bolters."  "Now  organize  and 
rally  in  Illinois  and  the  Northwest.  The  chances  in 
our  favor  are  immense  in  the  East.  Organize  the 
State!" 

Buoyed  up  by  these  sanguine  expectations,  Douglas 

*Xew  York  Times,  July  3,  1860.  *7W<*.,  June  26. 

•  MS.  letter,  Douglaa  to  C.  H.  Lanphier,  July  5,  1860.     He  wrote  in 
a  similar  vein  to  a  friend  in  Missouri,  July  4,  1860. 


430  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

undertook  a  tour  through  New  England,  not  to  make 
stump  speeches,  he  declared,  but  to  visit  and  enhearten 
his  followers.  Yet  at  every  point  on  the  way  to  Boston, 
he  was  greeted  with  enthusiasm;  and  whenever  time 
permitted  he  responded  with  brief  allusions  to  the  poli 
tical  situation.  As  the  guest  of  Harvard  University, 
at  the  alumni  dinner,  he  was  called  upon  to  speak — • 
not,  to  be  sure,  as  a  candidate  for  the  presidency,  but 
as  one  high  in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  and  as  a 
generous  contributor  to  the  founding  of  an  educational 
institution  in  Chicago.1  A  visit  to  Bunker  Hill  sug 
gested  the  great  principle  for  which  our  Eevolutionary 
fathers  fought  and  for  which  all  good  Democrats  were 
now  contending.2  At  Springfield,  too,  he  harked  back 
to  the  Eevolution  and  to  the  beginnings  of  the  great 
struggle  for  control  of  domestic  concerns.3 

Along  the  route  from  Boston  to  Saratoga,  he  was 
given  ovations,  and  his  diffidence  about  making  stump 
speeches  lessened  perceptibly.4  At  Troy,  he  made  a 
political  speech  in  his  own  vigorous  style,  remarking 
apologetically  that  if  he  did  not  return  home  soon,  he 
would  "get  to  making  stump  speeches  before  he  knew 
it."5  Passing  through  Vermont,  he  visited  the  grave 
of  his  father  and  the  scenes  of  his  childhood;  and 
here  and  there,  as  he  told  the  people  of  Concord  with 
a  twinkle  in  his  eye,  he  spoke  "a  little  just  for  exer 
cise."  Providence  recalled  the  memory  of  Eoger 
Williams  and  the  principles  for  which  he  suffered — 
principles  so  nearly  akin  to  those  for  which  Democrats 
to-day  were  laboring.  By  this  time  the  true  nature 

'New  York  Times,  July  20,  1860. 

2  Ibid.,  July  21.  *  Ibid.,  July  21. 

4  Ibid.,  July  24.  5  Ibid.,  July  28. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  431 

of  this  pilgrimage  was  apparent  to  everybody.  It  was 
the  first  time  in  our  history  that  a  presidential  candi 
date  had  taken  the  stump  in  his  own  behalf.  There 
was  bitter  criticism  on  the  part  of  those  who  regretted 
the  departure  from  decorous  precedent.1  When  Doug 
las  reached  Newport  for  a  brief  sojourn,  the  expecta 
tion  was  generally  entertained  that  he  would  continue 
in  retirement  for  the  remainder  of  the  campaign. 

Except  for  this  anomaly  of  a  candidate  canvassing 
in  his  own  behalf,  the  campaign  was  devoid  of  excit 
ing  incidents.  The  personal  canvass  of  Douglas  was 
indeed  almost  the  only  thing  that  kept  the  campaign 
from  being  dull  and  spiritless.2  Eepublican  politicians 
were  somewhat  at  a  loss  to  understand  why  he  should 
manoeuvre  in  a  section  devoted  beyond  question  to 
Lincoln.  Indeed,  a  man  far  less  keen  than  Douglas 
would  have  taken  note  of  the  popular  current  in  New 
England.  Why,  then,  this  expenditure  of  time  and 
effort!  In  all  probability  Douglas  gauged  the  situa 
tion  correctly.  He  is  said  to  have  conceded  frankly 
that  Lincoln  would  be  elected.3  His  contest  was  less 
with  Eepublicans  and  Constitutional  Unionists  now, 
than  with  the  followers  of  Breckinridge.  He  hoped  to 
effect  a  reorganization  of  the  Democratic  party  by 
crushing  the  disunion  elements  within  it.  With  this 
end  in  view  he  could  not  permit  the  organization  to  go 
to  pieces  in  the  North.  A  listless  campaign  on  his  part 
would  not  only  give  the  election  to  Lincoln,  but  leave 
his  own  followers  to  wander  leaderless  into  other  or 
ganizations.  For  the  sake  of  discipline  and  future 

*New  York  Times,  July.  24. 

2Khodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  482-483. 

'Wilson,  Slave  Power  in  America,  II,  p.  699. 


432  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

success,  he  rallied  Northern  Democrats  for  a  battle 
that  was  already  lost.1 

Well  assured  that  Lincoln  would  be  elected,  Douglas 
determined  to  go  South  and  prepare  the  minds  of  the 
people  for  the  inevitable.2  The  language  of  Southern 
leaders  had  grown  steadily  more  menacing  as  the 
probability  of  Eepublican  success  increased.  It  was 
now  proclaimed  from  the  house-tops  that  the  cotton 
States  would  secede,  if  Lincoln  were  elected.  Bepub- 
licans  might  set  these  threats  down  as  Southern  gas 
conade,  but  Douglas  knew  the  animus  of  the  secession 
ists  better  than  they.3  This  determination  pf  Douglas 
was  warmly  applauded  where  it  was  understood.4  In 
deed,  that  purpose  was  dictated  now  alike  by  politics 
and  patriotism. 

On  August  25th,  Douglas  spoke  at  Norfolk,  Virginia. 
In  the  course  of  his  address,  an  elector  on  the  Breckin- 
ridge  ticket  interrupted  him  with  two  questions. 
Though  taken  somewhat  by  surprise.  Douglas  with 
unerring  sagacity  detected  the  purpose  of  his  interro 
gator  and  answered  circumstantially.5  "  First,  If 
Abraham  Lincoln  be  elected  President  of  the  United 
States,  will  the  Southern  States  be  justified  in  seceding 
from  the  Union!"  "To  this  I  emphatically  answer  no. 
The  election  of  a  man  to  the  presidency  by  the  Ameri 
can  people  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  would  not  justify  any  attempt  at  dis- 

1  This  was  the  view  of  a  well-informed  correspondent  of  the  New 
York  Times,  August  10,  14,  16,  1860.     From  this  point  of  view,  Doug 
las's  tour  through  Maine  in  August  takes  on  special  significance. 

2  Wilson,  Slave  Power  in  America,  II,  699. 

•Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  pp.  487,  489. 
4  New  York  Times,  August  16,  1860. 
.,  August  29,  1860. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  433 

solving  tliis  glorious  confederacy.9'  " Second,  If  they 
secede  from  the  Union  upon  the  inauguration  of  Abra 
ham  Lincoln,  before  an  overt  act  against  their  con 
stitutional  rights,  will  you  advise  or  vindicate  resist 
ance  to  the  decision f"  "I  answer  emphatically,  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  and 
of  all  others  in  authority  under  him,  to  enforce  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  passed  by  Congress  and  as 
the  Courts  expound  them ;  and  I,  as  in  duty  bound  by 
my  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  Constitution,  would  do  all  in 
my  power  to  aid  the  government  of  the  United  States 
in  maintaining  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  against  all 
resistance  to  them,  come  from  whatever  quarter  it 

might I  hold  that  the  Constitution  has  a  remedy  for 

every  grievance  that  may  arise  within  the  limits  of  the 
Union.  .  .  .  The  mere  inauguration  of  a  President  of 
the  United  States,  whose  political  opinions  were,  in 
my  judgment,  hostile  to  the  Constitution  and  safety 
of  the  Union,  without  an  overt  act  on  his  part,  without 
striking  a  blow  at  our  institutions  or  our  rights,  is  not 
such  a  grievance  as  would  justify  revolution  or  seces 
sion/'  But  for  the  disunionists  at  the  South,  Doug 
las  went  on  to  say,  "I  would  have  beaten  Lincoln  in 
every  State  but  Vermont  and  Massachusetts.  As  it  is 
I  think  I  will  beat  him  in  almost  all  of  them  yet."1 
And  now  these  disunionists  come  forward  and  ask  aid 
in  dissolving  the  Union.  "I  tell  them  'no — never  on 
earth !' » 
Widely  quoted,  this  bold  defiance  of  disunion  made  a 

1  This  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  a  sober  opinion.    Clingman  had  be 
come  convinced  by  conversation  with  Douglas  that  he  was  not  making 
the  canvass  in  his  own  behalf,  but  in  order  to  weaken  and  divide  the 
South,  so  as  to  aid  Lincoln.     Clingman,  Speeches  and  Writings,  p.  513. 
28 


434  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

profound  impression  through  the  South.  At  Raleigh, 
North  Carolina,  Douglas  entered  into  collusion  with  a 
friend,  in  order  to  have  the  questions  repeated.1  And 
again  he  stated  his  attitude  in  unequivocal  language. 
"I  am  in  favor  of  executing,  in  good  faith,  every 
clause  and  provision  of  the  Constitution,  and  of  pro 
tecting  every  right  under  it,  and  then  hanging  every 
man  who  takes  up  arms  against  it.  Yes,  my  friends, 
I  would  hang  every  man  higher  than  Haman  who 
would  attempt  to  resist  by  force  the  execution  of  any 
provision  of  the  Constitution  which  our  fathers  made 
and  bequeathed  to  us."2  .. 

He  touched  many  hearts  when  he  reminded  his  hear 
ers  that  in  the  great  Northwest,  Northerners  and 
Southerners  met  and  married,  bequeathing  the  choice 
gifts  of  both  sections  to  their  children.  "When  their 
children  grow  up,  the  child  of  the  same  parents  has  a 
grandfather  in  North  Carolina  and  another  in  Vermont, 
and  that  child  does  not  like  to  hear  either  of  those 
States  abused.  .  .  .  He  will  never  consent  that  this 
Union  shall  be  dissolved  so  that  he  will  be  compelled 
to  obtain  a  passport  and  get  it  vised  to  enter  a  foreign 
land  to  visit  the  graves  of  his  ancestors.  You  cannot 
sever  this  Union  unless  you  cut  the  heart  strings  that 
bind  father  to  son,  daughter  to  mother,  and  brother  to 
sister,  in  all  our  new  States  and  territories. "  And  the 
heart  of  the  speaker  went  out  to  his  kindred  and  his 
boys,  who  were  almost  within  hearing  of  his  voice.  "I 
love  my  children,"  he  exclaimed,  "but  I  do  not  desire 
to  see  them  survive  this  Union." 

At  Richmond,  Douglas  received  an  ovation  which 

1  Clingman,  Speeches  and  Writings,  p.  513. 

2  North  Carolina  Standard,  September  5,  I860., 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  435 

recalled  the  days  when  Clay  was  the  idol  of  the  Whigs  ;* 
but  as  he  journeyed  northward  he  felt  more  and  more 
the  hostility  of  Breckinridge  men,  and  marked  the  dis 
position  of  many  of  his  own  supporters  to  strike  an 
alliance  with  them.  Unhesitatingly  he  threw  the 
weight  of  his  personal  influence  against  fusion.  At 
Baltimore,  he  averred  that  while  Breckinridge  was  not 
a  disunionist,  every  disunionist  was  a  Breckinridge 
man.2  And  at  Beading,  he  said,  ' i  For  one,  I  can  never 
fuse,  and  never  will  fuse  with  a  man  who  tells  me  that 
the  Democratic  creed  is  a  dogma,  contrary  to  reason 

and  to  the  Constitution I  have  fought  twenty-seven 

pitched  battles,  since  I  entered  public  life,  and  never 
yet  traded  with  nominations  or  surrendered  to  treach 
ery.'"  With  equal  pertinacity  he  refused  to  coun 
tenance  any  attempts  at  fusion  in  North  Carolina.4 
Even  more  explicitly  he  declared  against  fusion  in  a 
speech  at  Erie:  "No  Democrat  can,  without  dishonor, 
and  a  forfeiture  of  self-respect  and  principle,  fuse  with 
anybody  who  is  in  favor  of  intervention,  either  for  or 
against  slavery.  ...  As  Democrats  we  can  never  fuse 
either  with  Northern  Abolitionists  or  Southern  Bolters 
and  Secessionists.  "5 

In  spite  of  these  protests  and  admonitions,  Doug 
las  men  in  several  of  the  doubtful  States  entered  into 
more  or  less  definite  agreement  with  the  supporters 

1  Correspondent  to  New  York  Times,  September  5,  1860. 

2  Ibid.,  September  7,  1860. 

8  New  York  Tribune,  September  10,  1860.  Greeley  did  Douglas  an 
injustice  when  he  accused  him  of  courting  votes  by  favoring  a  protect 
ive  tariff  in  Pennsylvania.  The  misapprehension  was  doubtless  due  to 
a  garbled  associated  press  dispatch. 

*  Clingman,  Speeches  and  Writings,  p.  513. 

5  New  York  Times,  September  27,  1860. 


436  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

of  Breckinridge.  The  pressure  put  upon  him  in  New 
York  by  those  to  whom  he  was  indebted  for  his  nomi 
nation,  was  almost  too  strong  to  be  resisted.  Yet  he 
withstood  all  entreaties,  even  to  maintain  a  discreet 
silence  and  let  events  take  their  course.  Hostile  news 
papers  expressed  his  sentiments  when  they  represented 
him  as  opposed  to  fusion,  "all  the  way  from  Maine  to 
Calif ornia. ' n  "  Douglas  either  must  have  lost  his 
craft  as  a  politician,"  commented  Eaymond,  in  the 
editorial  columns  of  the  Times,  "or  be  credited  with 
steadfast  convictions."2 

Adverse  comment  on  Douglas's  personal  canvass 
had  now  ceased.  Wise  men  recognized  that  he  was 
preparing  the  public  mind  for  a  crisis,  as  no  one 
else  could.  He  set  his  face  westward,  speaking  at 
numerous  points.3  Continuous  speaking  had  now 
begun  to  tell  upon  him.  At  Cincinnati,  he  was  so 
hoarse  that  he  could  not  address  the  crowds  which  had 
gathered  to  greet  him,  but  he  persisted  in  speaking 
on  the  following  day  at  Indianapolis.  He  paused  in 
Chicago  only  long  enough  to  give  a  public  address,  and 
then  passed  on  into  Iowa.4  Among  his  own  people  he 
unbosomed  himself  as  he  had  not  done  before  in  all 
these  weeks  of  incessant  public  speaking.  "I  am  no 
alarmist.  I  believe  that  this  country  is  in  more  danger 
now  than  at  any  other  moment  since  I  have  known  any 
thing  of  public  life.  It  is  not  personal  ambition  that 
has  induced  me  to  take  the  stump  this  year.  I  say  to 
you  who  know  me,  that  the  presidency  has  no  charms 

1  New  York  Times,  September  13,  1860.  2  lUd. 

'His  movements  were  still  followed  by  the  New  York  Times,  which 
printed  his  list  of  appointments. 

*  Chicago  Times  and  Herald,  October  9,  1860. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  437 

for  me.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  my  interest  as  an 
ambitious  man,  to  be  President  this  year  if  I  could. 
But  I  do  love  this  Union.  There  is  no  sacrifice  on 
earth  that  I  would  not  make  to  preserve  it."1 

While  Douglas  was  in  Cedar  Bapids,  Iowa,  he  re 
ceived  a  dispatch  from  his  friend,  Forney,  announcing 
that  the  Eepublicans  had  carried  Pennsylvania  in  the 
October  State  election.  Similar  intelligence  came  from 
Indiana.  The  outcome  in  November  was  thus  clearly 
foreshadowed.  Eecognizing  the  inevitable,  Douglas 
turned  to  his  Secretary  with  the  laconic  words,  "Mr. 
Lincoln  is  the  next  President.  We  must  try  to  save  the 
Union.  I  will  go  South.  "2  He  at  once  made  appoint 
ments  to  speak  in  Tennessee,  Alabama,  and  Georgia, 
as  soon  as  he  should  have  met  his  Western  engage 
ments.  His  friends  marvelled  at  his  powers  of  endu 
rance.  For  weeks  he  had  been  speaking  from  hotel 
balconies,  from  the  platform  of  railroad  coaches,  and 
in  halls  to  monster  mass-meetings.3  Not  infrequently 
he  spoke  twice  and  thrice  a  day,  for  days  together.  It 
was  often  said  that  he  possessed  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States ;  and  he  caught  up  the  jest  with,  delight, 
remarking  that  he  believed  he  had.  Small  wonder 
if  much  that  he  said  was  trivial  and  unworthy  of 
his  attention  ;4  in  and  through  all  his  utterance,  never 
theless,  coursed  the  passionate  current  of  his  love  for 
the  Union,  transfiguring  all  that  was  paltry  and  com 
monplace.  From  Iowa  he  passed  into  Wisconsin  and 

1  Chicago  Times  and  Herald,  October  6,  1860. 

2  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America,  II,  p.  700; 
see  also  Forney's  Eulogy  of  Douglas,  1861. 

3  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  p.  493. 

4  Ibid. 


438  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

Michigan,  finally  entering  upon  his  Southern  mission 
at  St.  Louis,  October  19th.  "I  am  not  here  to-night," 
he  told  his  auditors,  with  a  shade  of  weariness  in  his 
voice,  "to  ask  your  votes  for  the  presidency.  I  am  not 
one  of  those  who  believe  that  I  have  any  more  personal 
interest  in  the  presidency  than  any  other  good  citizen 
in  America.  I  am  here  to  make  an  appeal  to  you  in  be 
half  of  the  Union  and  the  peace  of  the  country."1 

It  was  a  courageous  little  party  that  left  St.  Louis 
for  Memphis  and  the  South.  Mrs.  Douglas  was  still 
with  her  husband,  determined  to  share  all  the  hard 
ships  that  fell  to  his  lot;  and  besides  her,  there  was 
only  James  B.  Sheridan,  Douglas's  devoted  secretary 
and  stenographer.  The  Southern  press  had  threatened 
Douglas  with  personal  violence,  if  he  should  dare  to 
invade  the  South  with  his  political  heresies.2  But 
Luther  bound  for  Worms  was  not  more  indifferent  to 
personal  danger  than  this  modern  intransigeant.  His 
conduct  earned  the  hearty  admiration  of  even  Bepub- 
lican  journals,  for  no  one  could  now  believe  that  he 
courted  the  South  in  his  own  behalf.  Nor  was  there 
any  foolish  bravado  in  this  adventure.  He  was  thor 
oughly  sobered  by  the  imminence  of  disunion.  When 
he  read,  in  a  newspaper  devoted  to  his  interests,  that 
it  was  "the  deep-seated  fixed  determination  on  the  part 
of  the  leading  Southern  States  to  go  out  of  the  Union, 
peaceably  and  quietly,"  he  knew  that  these  words  were 
no  cheap  rhetoric,  for  they  were  penned  by  a  man  of 
Northern  birth  and  antecedents.3 

1  Chicago  Times  and  Herald,  October  24,  1860. 

2  Philadelphia  Press,  October  29,  1860. 

8 Savannah    (Ga.)    Express,  quoted   by   Chicago    Times   and   Herald, 
October  25,  1860. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  439 

The  history  of  this  Southern  tour  has  never  been 
written.  It  was  the  firm  belief  of  Douglas  that  at  least 
one  attempt  was  made  to  wreck  his  train.  At  Mont 
gomery,  while  addressing  a  public  gathering,  he  was 
made  the  target  for  nameless  missiles.1  Yet  none  of 
these  adventures  were  permitted  to  find  their  way  into 
the  Northern  press.  And  only  his  intimates  learned  of 
them  from  his  own  lips  after  his  return. 

The  news  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election  overtook  Douglas 
in  Mobile.  He  was  in  the  office  of  the  Mobile  Register, 
one  of  the  few  newspapers  which  had  held  to  him  and 
his  cause  through  thick  and  thin.  It  now  became  a 
question  what  policy  the  paper  should  pursue.  The 
editor  asked  his  associate  to  read  aloud  an  article  which 
he  had  just  written,  advocating  a  State  convention  to 
deliberate  upon  the  course  of  Alabama  in  the  ap 
proaching  crisis.  Douglas  opposed  its  publication; 
but  he  was  assured  that  the  only  way  to  manage  the 
secession  movement  was  to  appear  to  go  with  it,  and 
by  electing  men  opposed  to  disunion,  to  control  the  con 
vention.  With  his  wonted  sagacity,  Douglas  remarked 
that  if  they  could  not  prevent  the  calling  of  a  conven 
tion,  they  could  hardly  hope  to  control  its  action.  But 
the  editors  determined  to  publish  the  article,  "and 
Douglas  returned  to  his  hotel  more  hopeless  than  I 
had  ever  seen  him  before,"  wrote  Sheridan.2 

On  his  return  to  the  North,  Douglas  spoke  twice,  at 
New  Orleans  and  at  Vicksburg,  urging  acquiescence 
in  the  result  of  the  election.3  He  put  the  case  most 

1  There  was   a  bare  reference   to  the  Montgomery   incident   in   the 
Chicago  Times  and  Herald,  November  12,  1860. 

2  Wilson,  Slave  Power  in  America,  II,  p.  700. 

"Chicago  Times  and  Herald,  November  13,  1860;  Philadelphia  Press, 
November  28,  1860. 


440  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

cogently  in  a  letter  to  the  business  men  of  New  Orleans, 
which  was  widely  published.  No  one  deplored  the  elec 
tion  of  an  Abolitionist  as  President  more  than  he. 
Still,  he  could  not  find  any  just  cause  for  dissolving  the 
Federal  Union  in  the  mere  election  of  any  man  to  the 
presidency,  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution.  Those 
who  apprehended  that  the  new  President  would  carry 
out  the  aggressive  policy  of  his  party,  failed  to  observe 
that  his  party  was  in  a  minority.  Even  his  appoint 
ments  to  office  would  have  to  be  confirmed  by  a  hostile 
Senate.  Any  invasion  of  constitutional  rights  would  be 
resented  in  the  North,  as  well  as  in  the  South.  In  short, 
the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  could  only  serve  as  a  pretext 
for  those  who  purposed  to  break  up  the  Union  and  to 
form  a  Southern  Confederacy.1 

On  the  face  of  the  election  returns,  Douglas  made 
a  sorry  showing ;  he  had  won  the  electoral  vote  of  but 
a  single  State,  Missouri,  though  three  of  the  seven  elec 
toral  votes  of  New  Jersey  fell  to  him  as  the  result  of 
fusion.  Yet  as  the  popular  vote  in  the  several  States 
was  ascertained,  defeat  wore  the  guise  of  a  great  per 
sonal  triumph.  Leader  of  a  forlorn  hope,  he  had  yet 
received  the  suffrages  of  1,376,957  citizens,  only  489,495 
less  votes  than  Lincoln  had  polled.  Of  these  163,525 
came  from  the  South,  while  Lincoln  received  only 
26,430,  all  from  the  border  slave  States.  As  compared 
with  the  vote  of  Breckinridge  and  Bell  at  the  South, 
Douglas's  vote  was  insignificant;  but  at  the  North, 
he  ran  far  ahead  of  the  combined  vote  of  both.2  It 
goes  without  saying  that  had  Douglas  secured  the  full 
Democratic  vote  in  the  free  States,  he  would  have 

1  Chicago  Times  and  Herald,  November  19,  1860. 
2Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  p.  297. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  441 

pressed  Lincoln  hard  in  many  quarters.  From  the 
national  standpoint,  the  most  significant  aspect  of  the 
popular  vote  was  the  failure  of  Breckinridge  to  secure 
a  majority  in  the  slave  States.1  Union  sentiment  was 
still  stronger  than  the  secessionists  had  boasted.  The 
next  most  significant  fact  in  the  history  of  the  election 
was  this:  Abraham  Lincoln  had  been  elected  to  the 
presidency  by  the  vote  of  a  section  which  had  given 
over  a  million  votes  to  his  rival,  the  leader  of  a  fac 
tion  of  a  disorganized  party. 

1  Douglas  and  Bell  polled  135,057  votes  more  than  Breckinridge;    see 
Greeley,  American  Conflict,  I,  p.  328. 


CHAPTER  XIX 
THE  MERGING  OF  THE  PARTISAN  IN  THE  PATRIOT 

On  the  day  after  the  election,  the  palmetto  and  lone 
star  flag  was  thrown  out  to  the  breeze  from  the  office 
of  the  Charleston  Mercury  and  hailed  with  cheers  by 
the  populace.  "The  tea  has  been  thrown  overboard — 
the  revolution  of  1860  has  been  initiated/'  said  that 
ebullient  journal  next  morning.1  On  the  10th  of  No 
vember,  the  legislature  of  South  Carolina  called  a  con 
vention  of  the  people  to  consider  the  relations  of  the 
Commonwealth  "with  the  Northern  States  and  the 
government  of  the  United  States."  The  instantaneous 
approval  of  the  people  of  Charleston,  the  focus  of 
public  opinion  in  the  State,  left  no  doubt  that  South 
Carolina  would  secede  from  the  Union  soon  after  the 
17th  of  December,  when  the  convention  was  to  as 
semble.  On  November  23d,  Major  Robert  Anderson, 
in  command  of  Fort  Moultrie  in  Charleston  harbor, 
urged  the  War  Department  to  reinforce  his  garrison 
and  to  occupy  also  Fort  Sumter  and  Castle  Pinckney, 
saying,  "I  need  not  say  how  anxious  I  am — indeed, 
determined,  so  far  as  honor  will  permit — to  avoid 
collision  with  the  citizens  of  South  Carolina.  Nothing, 
however,  will  be  better  calculated  to  prevent  blood 
shed  than  our  being  found  in  such  an  attitude  that  it 
would  be  madness  and  folly  to  attack  us. ' '  "  That  there 
is  a  settled  determination,"  he  continued,  "to  leave 
the  Union,  and  to  obtain  possession  of  this  work,  is 

1  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  pp.  116  ff. 

442 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         443 

apparent  to  all."1  No  sane  man  could  doubt  that  a 
crisis  was  imminent.  Unhappily,  James  Buchanan 
was  still  President  of  the  United  States. 

To  those  who  greeted  Judge  Douglas  upon  his  re 
turn  to  Washington,  he  seemed  to  be  in  excellent  health, 
despite  rumors  to  the  contrary.2  Demonstrative  fol 
lowers  insisted  upon  hearing  his  voice  immediately 
upon  his  arrival,  and  he  was  not  unwilling  to  repeat 
what  he  had  said  at  New  Orleans,  here  within  hear 
ing  of  men  of  all  sections.  The  burden  of  his  thought 
was  contained  in  a  single  sentence:  "Mr.  Lincoln, 
having  been  elected,  must  be  inaugurated  in  obedience 
to  the  Constitution."  "Fellow  citizens,"  he  said,  in 
his  rich,  sonorous  voice,  sounding  the  key-note  of  his 
subsequent  career,  "I  beseech  you,  with  reference  to 
former  party  divisions,  to  lay  aside  all  political  asperi 
ties,  all  personal  prejudices,  to  indulge  in  no  crimina 
tions  or  recriminations,  but  to  unite  with  me,  and  all] 
Union-loving  men,  in  a  common  effort  to  save  the 
country  from  the  disasters  which  threaten  it."3 

In  the  midst  of  forebodings  which  even  the  most 
optimistic  shared,  Congress  reassembled.  Feeling  was 
tense  in  both  houses,  but  it  was  more  noticeable  in 
the  Senate,  where,  hitherto,  political  differences  had 
not  been  a  barrier  to  social  intercourse.  Senator 
Iverson  put  into  words  what  all  felt:  "Look  at  the 
spectacle  exhibited  on  this  floor.  How  is  it?  There 
are  Eepublican  Northern  senators  upon  that  side. 
Here  are  Southern  senators  on  this  side.  How  much 
social  intercourse  is  there  between  us  1  You  sit  upon 

1  Ehodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  pp.  131-132. 

2  Chicago  Times  and  Herald,  December  7,  1860. 
8  Ibid. 


444  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

your  side,  silent  and  gloomy;  we  sit  upon  ours  with 
knit  brows  and  portentous  scowls.  .  .  .  Here  are  two 
hostile  bodies  on  this  floor ;  and  it  is  but  a  type  of  the 
feeling  that  exists  between  the  two  sections. >n 

Southern  senators  hastened  to  lay  bare  their  .griev 
ances.  However  much  they  might  differ  in  naming 
specific,  tangible  ills,  they  all  agreed  upon  the  great 
cause  of  their  apprehension  and  uneasiness.  Davis 
voiced  the  common  feeling  when  he  said,  "I  believe 
the  true  cause  of  our  danger  to  be  that  a  sectional 
hostility  has  been  substituted  for  a  general  frater 
nity.  "2  And  his  colleague  confirmed  this  opinion. 
Clingman  put  the  same  thought  more  concretely  when 
he  declared  that  the  South  was  apprehensive,  not  be 
cause  a  dangerous  man  had  been  elected  to  the  presi 
dency;  but  because  a  President  had  been  elected  who 
was  known  to  be  a  dangerous  man  and  who  had  de 
clared  his  purpose  to  war  upon  the  social  system  of 
the  South.3 

"With  the  utmost  boldness,  Southern  senators  an 
nounced  the  impending  secession  of  their  States.  "We 
intend/'  said  Iverson  of  Georgia  speaking  for  his 
section,  "to  go  out  peaceably  if  we  can,  forcibly  if  we 
must.  ...  In  this  state  of  feeling,  divided  as  we  are 
by  interests,  by  a  geographical  feeling,  by  everything 
that  makes  two  people  separate  and  distinct,  I  ask 
why  we  should  remain  in  the  same  Union  together  f  "4 

No  Northern  senator  had  better  reason  than  Doug 
las  to  believe  that  these  were  not  merely  idle  threats. 
The  knowledge  sobered  him.  In  this  hour  of  peril, 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  12. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  29.  •  Ibid.,  p.  3.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  11-12. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         445 

his  deep  love  for  the  Union  welled  up  within  him, 
submerging  the  partisan  and  the  politician.  "I  trust," 
he  said,  rebuking  a  Northern  senator,  "we  may  lay 
aside  all  party  grievances,  party  feuds,  partisan  jeal 
ousies,  and  look  to  our  country,  and  not  to  our  party, 
in  the  consequences  of  our  action.  Sir,  I  am  as  good 
a  party  man  as  anyone  living,  when  there  are  only 
party  issues  at  stake,  and  the  fate  of  political  parties 
to  be  provided  for.  But,  Sir,  if  I  know  myself,  I  do 
not  desire  to  hear  the  word  party,  or  to  listen  to  any 
party  appeal,  while  we  are  considering  and  discussing 
the  questions  upon  which  the  fate  of  the  country  now 
hangs. ' n 

In  this  spirit  Douglas  welcomed  from  the  South  the 
recital  of  special  grievances.  "Give  us  each  charge 
and  each  specification. ...  I  hold  that  there  is  no  griev 
ance  growing  out  of  a  nonfulfillment  of  constitutional 
obligations,  which  cannot  be  remedied  under  the  Con 
stitution  and  within  the  Union."2  And  when  the  Per 
sonal  Liberty  Acts  of  Northern  States  were  cited  as  a 
long-standing  grievance,  he  heartily  denounced  them 
as  in  direct  violation  of  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of 
the  Constitution.  At  the  same  time  he  contended  that 
these  acts  existed  generally  in  the  States  to  which  few 
fugitives  ever  fled,  and  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act 
was  enforced  nineteen  out  of  twenty  times.  It  was 
the  twentieth  case  that  was  published  abroad  through 
the  press,  misleading  the  South.  In  fact,  the  present 
excitement  was,  to  his  mind,  due  to  the  inability  of  the 
extremes  of  North  and  South  to  understand  each  other. 
"Those  of  us  that  live  upon  the  border,  and  have 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  28. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  57. 


446  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

commercial  intercourse  and  social  relations  across  the 
line,  can  live  in  peace  with  each  other. "  If  the  border 
slave  States  and  the  border  free  States  could  arbitrate 
the  question  of  slavery,  the  Union  would  last  forever.1 

Arbitration  and  compromise — these  were  the  words 
with  which  the  venerable  Crittenden  of  Kentucky,  suc 
cessor  to  Clay,  now  endeavored  to  rally  Union-loving 
men.  He  was  seconded  by  his  colleague,  Senator 
Powell,  who  had  already  moved  the  appointment  of  a 
special  committee  of  thirteen,  to  consider  the  griev 
ances  between  the  slave-holding  and  non-slave-holding 
States.  Douglas  put  himself  unreservedly  at  the  serv 
ice  of  the  party  of  compromise.  It  seemed,  for  the 
moment,  as  though  the  history  of  the  year  1850  were 
to  be  repeated.  Now,  as  then,  the  initiative  was  taken 
by  a  senator  from  the  border-State  of  Kentucky. 
Again  a  committee  of  thirteen  was  to  prepare  meas 
ures  of  adjustment.  The  composition  of  the  committee 
was  such  as  to  give  promise  of  a  settlement,  if  any 
were  possible.  Seward,  Collamer,  Wade,  Doolittle, 
and  Grimes,  were  the  Eepublican  members ;  Douglas, 
Rice,  and  Bigler  represented  the  Democracy  of  the 
North.  Davis  and  Toombs  represented  the  Gulf 
States;  Powell,  Crittenden,  and  Hunter,  the  border 
slave  States.2 

On  the  22d  of  December,  the  committee  took  under 
consideration  the  Crittenden  resolutions,  which  pro 
posed  six  amendments  to  the  Constitution  and  four 
joint  resolutions.  The  crucial  point  was  the  first 
amendment,  which  would  restore  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  line  "in  all  the  territory  of  the  United  States 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  52. 

8  Khodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  pp.  151-153. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT          447 

now  held,  or  hereafter  acquired."  Could  this  disposi 
tion  of  the  vexing  territorial  question  have  been  agreed 
upon,  the  other  features  of  the  compromise  would 
probably  have  commanded  assent.  But  this  and  all 
the  other  proposed  amendments  were  defeated  by  the 
adverse  vote  of  the  Eepublican  members  of  the  com 
mittee.1 

The  outcome  was  disheartening.  Douglas  had  firmly 
believed  that  conciliation,  or  concession,  alone  could 
save  the  country  from  civil  war.2  When  the  commit 
tee  first  met  informally3  the  news  was  already  in  print 
that  the  South  Carolina  convention  had  passed  an 
ordinance  of  secession.  Under  the  stress  of  this  event, 
and  of  others  which  he  apprehended,  Douglas  had 
voted  for  all  the  Crittenden  amendments  and  resolu 
tions,  regardless  of  his  personal  predilections.  "The 
prospects  are  gloomy, "  he  wrote  privately,  "but  I  do 
not  yet  despair  of  the  Union.  We  can  never  acknowl 
edge  the  right  of  a  State  to  secede  and  cut  us  off  from 
the  ocean  and  the  world,  without  our  consent.  But  in 
view  of  impending  civil  war  with  our  brethren  in  nearly 
one-half  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  I  will  not  consider 
the  question  of  force  and  war  until  all  efforts  at  peace 
ful  adjustment  have  been  made  and  have  failed.  The 
fact  can  no  longer  be  disguised  that  many  of  the  Ke- 
publican  leaders  desire  war  and  disunion  under  pretext 
of  saving  the  Union.  They  wish  to  get  rid  of  the 
Southern  senators  in  order  to  have  a  majority  in  the 
Senate  to  confirm  Lincoln's  appointments;  and  many 
of  them  think  they  can  hold  a  permanent  Eepublican 

1  Eeport  of  the  Committee  of  Thirteen,  pp.  11-12. 

2  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  158. 
•December  21st. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         449 

And  when  Crittenden  proposed  to  the  Senate  that  the 
people  at  large  should  be  allowed  to  express  their  ap 
proval,  or  disapproval,  of  his  amendments  by  a  vote, 
Douglas  cordially  indorsed  the  suggested  referendum 
in  a  speech  of  great  power. 

There  was  dross  mingled  with  the  gold  in  this  speech 
of  January  3d.  Not  all  his  auditors  by  any  means 
were  ready  to  admit  that  the  attempt  of  the  Federal 
government  to  control  the  slavery  question  in  the  Terri 
tories,  regardless  of  the  wishes  of  the  inhabitants,  was 
the  real  cause  of  Southern  discontent.  Nor  were  all 
willing  to  concede  that  "  whenever  Congress  had  re 
frained  from  such  interference,  harmony  and  fraternal 
feeling  had  been  restored."1  The  history  of  Kansas 
was  still  too  recent.  Yet  from  these  premises,  Doug 
las  drew  the  conclusion  "that  the  slavery  question 
should  be  banished  forever  from  the  Halls  of  Congress 
and  the  arena  of  Federal  politics  by  an  irrepealable 
constitutional  provision."2 

The  immediate  occasion  for  revolution  in  the  South 
was  no  doubt  the  outcome  of  the  presidential  election ; 
but  that  it  furnished  a  just  cause  for  the  dissolution 
of  the  Union,  he  would  not  for  an  instant  admit.  No 
doubt  Mr.  Lincoln's  public  utterances  had  given  some 
ground  for  apprehension.  No  one  had  more  vigorously 
denounced  these  dangerous,  revolutionary  doctrines 
than  he ;  but  neither  Mr.  Lincoln  nor  his  party  would 
have  the  power  to  injure  the  South,  if  the  Southern 
States  remained  in  the  Union  and  maintained  full  dele 
gations  in  Congress.  "Besides,"  he  added,  "I  still 
indulge  the  hope  that  when  Mr.  Lincoln  shall  assume 
the  high  responsibilities  which  will  soon  devolve  upon 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  35.  *IUd.,  p.  38. 

29 


450  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

him,  he  will  be  fully  impressed  with  the  necessity  of 
sinking  the  politician  in  the  statesman,  the  partisan  in 
the  patriot,  and  regard  the  obligations  which  he  owes 
to  his  country  as  paramount  to  those  of  his  party."1 

No  one  brought  the  fearful  alternatives  into  view, 
with  such  inexorable  logic,  as  Douglas  in  this  same 
speech.  While  he  denounced  secession  as  u  wrong,  un 
lawful,  unconstitutional,  and  criminal, "  he  was  bound 
to  recognize  the  fact  of  secession.  *  *  South  Carolina  had 
no  right  to  secede ;  but  she  has  done  it.  The  rights  of 
the  Federal  government  remain,  but  possession  is 
lost.  How  can  possession  be  regained,  by  arms  or  by 
a  peaceable  adjustment  of  the  matters  in  controversy? 
Are  iv e  prepared  for  ivar?  I  do  not  mean  that  kind 
of  preparation  which  consists  of  armies  and  navies, 
and  supplies,  and  munitions  of  war;  but  are  we  pre 
pared  IN  OUR  HEARTS  for  war  with  our  own  brethren 
and  kindred!  I  confess  I  am  not."2 

These  were  not  mere  words  for  oratorical  effect. 
They  were  expressions  wrung  from  a  tortured  heart, 
bound  by  some  of  the  tenderest  of  human  affections 
to  the  people  of  the  South.  Buried  in  the  land  of  her 
birth  rested  the  mother  of  his  two  boys,  whom  he  had 
loved  tenderly  and  truly.  There  in  the  Southland 
were  her  kindred,  the  kindred  of  his  two  boys,  and 
many  of  his  warmest  personal  friends.  The  prospect 

1  Globe   36    Cong.,    2    Sess.,   App.,    p.   39.      It    is   not   unlikely   that 
Douglas  may  have  been  reassured  on  this  point  by  some  communication 
from  Lincoln  himself.     The  Diary  of  a  Public  Man    (North  American 
Review,  Vol.  129,)   p.  130,  gives  the  impression  that  they  had  been  in 
correspondence.    Personal  relations  between  them  had  been  cordial  even 
in  1859,  just  after  the  debates;    See  Publication  No.  11,  of  the  Illinois 
Historical  Library,  p.  191. 

2  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  39. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT          451 

of  war  brought  no  such  poignant  grief  to  men  whose 
associations  for  generations  had  been  confined  to  the 
North. 

Returning  to  the  necessity  of  concession  and  com 
promise,  he  frankly  admitted  that  he  had  thrown  con 
sistency  to  the  winds.  The  preservation  of  the  Union 
was  of  more  importance  than  party  platforms  or  indi 
vidual  records.  "I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  to 
senators  on  all  sides  of  this  Chamber,  that  I  am  pre 
pared  to  act  on  this  question  with  reference  to  the 
present  exigencies  of  the  case,  as  if  I  had  never  given 
a  vote,  or  uttered  a  word,  or  had  an  opinion  upon  the 
subject/'1 

Nor  did  he  hesitate  to  throw  the  responsibility  for 
disagreement  in  the  Committee  of  Thirteen  upon  the 
Republican  members.  In  the  name  of  peace  he  pled 
for  less  of  party  pride  and  the  pride  of  individual 
opinion.  "The  political  party  which  shall  refuse  to 
allow  the  people  to  determine  for  themselves  at  the 
ballot-box  the  issue  between  revolution  and  war  on  the 
one  side,  and  obstinate  adherence  to  a  party  platform 
on  the  other,  will  assume  a  fearful  responsibility.  A 
war  upon  a  political  issue,  waged  by  the  people  of 
eighteen  States  against  the  people  and  domestic  insti 
tutions  of  fifteen  sister-States,  is  a  fearful  and  revolt 
ing  thought."2  But  Republican  senators  were  deaf 
to  all  warnings  from  so  recent  a  convert  to  non-parti 
san  politics. 

While  the  Committee  of  Thirteen  was  in  session, 
Major  Anderson  moved  his  garrison  from  Fort  Moul- 
trie  to  Fort  Sumter  in  Charleston  harbor,  urging  re- 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  App.,  p.  41. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  42. 


452  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

peatedly  the  need  of  reinforcements.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  new  year,  President  Buchanan  was  inspired  to 
form  a  good  resolution.  He  resolved  that  Anderson 
should  not  be  ordered  to  return  to  Moultrie  but  should 
be  reinforced.  On  the  5th  of  January,  the  "Star  of 
the  West,"  with  men,  arms  and  ammunition,  was  dis 
patched  to  Charleston  harbor.  On  the  9th  the  steamer 
was  fired  upon  and  forced  to  return  without  accomplish 
ing  its  mission.  Then  came  the  news  of  the  secession 
of  Mississippi.  In  rapid  succession  Florida,  Alabama, 
and  Georgia  passed  ordinances  of  secession.1  Louisi 
ana  and  Texas  were  sure  to  follow  the  lead  of  the  other 
cotton  States. 

In  spite  of  these  untoward  events,  the  Eepublican 
senators  remained  obdurate.  Their  answer  to  the  Crit- 
tenden  referendum  proposition  was  the  Clark  resolu 
tion,  which  read,  "The  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
are  ample  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  and  the 
protection  of  all  the  material  interests  of  the  country ; 
it  needs  to  be  obeyed  rather  than  amended.  "2  On  the 
21st  of  the  month,  the  senators  of  the  seceding  States 
withdrew ;  yet  Douglas  could  still  say  to  anxious  Union 
men  at  the  South,  "There  is  hope  of  adjustment,  and 
the  prospect  has  never  been  better  than  since  we  first 
assembled.  "3  And  Senator  Crittenden  concurred  in 
this  view.  On  what  could  they  have  grounded  their 
hopes? 

Douglas  still  believed  in  the  efficacy  of  compromise 
to  preserve  the  Union.  Through  many  channels  he 

1  January  10th,  llth,  and  19th. 

2  The  resolution  was  carried,  25  to  23,  six  Southern  Senators  refus 
ing  to  vote.     Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  409. 

*Mcpherson,  Political  History  of  the  Eebellion,  p.  39. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         453 

received  intelligence  from  the  South,  and  he  knew  well 
that  the  leaders  of  public  opinion  were  not  of  one 
mind.  Some,  at  least,  regarded  the  proposed  Southern 
confederacy  as  a  means  of  securing  a  revision  of  the 
Constitution.  Men  like  Benjamin  of  Louisiana  were 
still  ready  to  talk  confidentially  of  a  final  adjustment.1 
Moreover,  there  was  a  persistent  rumor  that  Seward 
was  inclining  to  the  Crittenden  Compromise;  and 
Seward,  as  the  prospective  leader  of  the  incoming  ad 
ministration,  would  doubtless  carry  many  Eepublicans 
with  him.  Something,  too,  might  be  expected  from  the 
Peace  Convention,  which  was  to  meet  on  February  4th, 
in  Washington. 

Meantime  Douglas  lent  his  aid  to  such  legislative 
labors  as  the  exigencies  of  the  hour  permitted.  Once 
again,  he  found  himself  acting  with  the  Eepublicans  to 
do  justice  to  Kansas,  for  Kansas  was  now  a  suppliant 
for  admission  into  the  Union  with  a  free  constitution. 
Again  specious  excuses  were  made  for  denying  simple 
justice.  Toward  the  obstructionists,  his  old  enemies, 
Douglas  showed  no  rancor :  there  was  no  time  to  lose  in 
personalities.  "The  sooner  we  close  up  this  contro 
versy  the  better,  if  we  intend  to  wipe  out  the  excited 
and  irritated  feelings  that  have  grown  out  of  it.  It  will 
have  a  tendency  to  restore  good  feelings."2  But  not 
until  the  Southern  senators  had  withdrawn,  was 
Kansas  admitted  to  the  Union  of  the  States,  which  was 
then  hanging  in  the  balance. 

Whenever  senators  from  the  slave  States  could  be 

1  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  pp.  133-134.     Douglas  was  on  terms  of  in 
timacy  with  the  writer,   and   must  have   shared  these   communications. 
I    Besides,  Douglas  had  independent  sources  of  information. 
2  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  445-446. 


454  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

induced  to  name  their  tangible  grievances,  and  not  to 
dwell  merely  upon  anticipated  injuries,  they  were  wont 
to  cite  the  Personal  Liberty  Acts.  In  spite  of  his  good 
intentions,  Douglas  was  drawn  into  an  altercation 
with  Mason  of  Virginia,  in  which  he  cited  an  historic 
case  where  Virginia  had  been  the  offender.  Becover- 
ing  himself,  he  said  ingenuously,  "I  hope  we  are  not 
to  bandy  these  little  cases  backwards  and  forwards  for 
the  purpose  of  sectional  irritation.  Let  us  rather  meet 
the  question,  and  give  the  Constitution  the  true  con 
struction,  and  allow  all  criminals  to  be  surrendered 
according  to  the  law  of  the  State  where  the  offense  was 
committed. ' n 

As  evidence  of  his  desire  to  remove  this  most 
tangible  of  Southern  gravamina,  Douglas  introduced 
a  supplementary  fugitive  slave  bill  on  January  28th.2 
Its  notable  features  were  the  provision  for  jury  trial 
in  a  Federal  court,  if  after  extradition  a  fugitive 
should  persist  in  claiming  his  freedom;  and  the  pro 
visions  for  the  payment  of  damages  to  the  claimant, 
if  he  should  lose  through  violence  a  fugitive  slave  to 
whom  he  had  a  valid  title.  The  Federal  government 
in  turn  might  bring  suit  against  the  county  where 
the  rescue  had  occurred,  and  the  county  might  reim 
burse  itself  by  suing  the  offenders  to  the  full  amount 
of  the  damages  paid.3  Had  this  bill  passed,  it  would 
have  made  good  the  most  obvious  defects  in  the  much- 
defamed  legislation  of  1850;  but  the  time  had  long 
since  passed,  when  such  concessions  would  satisfy  the 
South. 

Douglas  had  to  bear  many  a  gibe  for  his  publicly 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  508.  2  Ibid.,  p.  586. 

•Senate  Bill,  No.  549,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         455 

expressed  hopes  of  peace.  Mason  denounced  his  letter 
to  Virginia  gentlemen  as  a  "puny,  pusillanimous  at 
tempt  to  hoodwink"  the  people  of  Virginia.  But 
Douglas  replied  with  an  earnest  reiteration  of  his  ex 
pectations.  Yet  all  depended,  he  admitted,  on  the 
action  of  Virginia  and  the  border  States.  For  this 
reason  he  deprecated  the  uncompromising  attitude  of 
the  senator  from  Virginia,  when  he  said,  "We  want 
no  concessions. "  Equally  deplorable,  he  thought,  was 
the  spirit  evinced  by  the  senator  from  New  Hampshire 
who  applauded  that  regrettable  remark.  "I  never 
intend  to  give  up  the  hope  of  saving  this  Union  so  long 
as  there  is  a  ray  left,"  he  cried.1  Why  try  to  force ( 
slavery  to  go  where  experience  has  demonstrated  that 
climate  is  adverse  and  where  the  people  do  not  want  it? 
Why  prohibit  slavery  where  the  government  cannot 
make  it  exist?  "Why  break  up  the  Union  upon  an 
abstraction?"  Let  the  one  side  give  up  its  demand 
for  protection  and  the  other  for  prohibition;  and  let 
them  unite  upon  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
which  shall  deny  to  Congress  the  power  to  legislate 
upon  slavery  everywhere,  except  in  the  matter  of 
fugitive  slaves  and  the  African  slave-trade.  "Do 
that,  and  you  will  have  peace ;  do  that,  and  the  Union 
will  last  forever;  do  that,  and  you  do  not  extend 
slavery  one  inch,  nor  circumscribe  it  one  inch ;  you  do 
not  emancipate  a  slave,  and  do  not  enslave  a  free 
man."2 

In  the  course  of  his  eloquent  plea  for  mutual  con 
cession,  Douglas  was  repeatedly  interrupted  by  Wig- 
fall  of  Texas,  whose  State  was  at  the  moment  prepar- 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Seas.,  p.  661. 
•Ibid. 


456  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

ing  to  leave  the  Union.  In  ironical  tones,  Wigfall 
begged  to  be  informed  upon  what  ground  the  senator 
based  his  hope  and  belief  that  the  Union  would  be  pre 
served.  Douglas  replied,  "I  see  indications  every 
day  of  a  disposition  to  meet  this  question  now  and  con 
sider  what  is  necessary  to  save  the  Union. "  And  then, 
anticipating  the  sneers  of  his  interrogator,  he  said 
sharply,  "If  the  senator  will  just  follow  me,  instead 
of  going  off  to  Texas;  sit  here,  and  act  in  concert 
with  us  Union  men,  we  will  make  him  a  very  efficient 
agent  in  accomplishing  that  object."1  But  to  the 
obdurate  mind  of  Wigfall  this  Union  talk  was  "the 
merest  balderdash. "  Compromise  on  the  basis  of 
non-intervention,  he  pronounced  "worse  than  'Seward- 
ism,'  for  it  had  hypocrisy  and  the  other  was  bold 
and  open/'  There  was,  unhappily,  only  too  much 
truth  in  his  pithy  remark  that  "the  apple  of  discord 
is  offered  to  us  as  the  fruit  of  peace/' 

It  was  a  sad  commentary  on  the  state  of  the  Union 
that  while  the  six  cotton  States  were  establishing  the 
constitution  and  government  of  a  Southern  Confede 
racy,  the  Federal  Senate  was  providing  for  the  terri 
torial  organization  of  that  great  domain  whose  acqui 
sition  had  been  the  joint  labor  of  all  the  States.  Three 
Territories  were  projected.  In  one  of  these,  Colorado, 
a  provisional  government  had  already  been  set  up  by 
the  mining  population  of  the  Pike's  Peak  country.  To 
the  Colorado  bill  Douglas  interposed  serious  objec 
tions.  By  its  provisions,  the  southern  boundary  cut 
off  a  portion  of  New  Mexico,  which  was  slave  Terri 
tory,  and  added  it  to  Colorado.  At  the  same  time  a 
provision  in  the  bill  prevented  the  territorial  legislature 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  669. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         457 

from  passing  any  law  to  destroy  the  rights  of  private 
property.  Was  the  new  Territory  of  Colorado  to  be 
free  or  slave?  Another  provision  debarred  the  terri 
torial  legislature  from  condemning  private  property 
for  public  uses.  How,  then,  could  Colorado  construct 
even  a  public  road!  Still  another  provision  declared 
that  there  should  be  no  discrimination  in  the  rate  of 
taxation  between  different  kinds  of  property.  How, 
then,  could  Colorado  make  those  necessary  exemptions 
which  were  to  be  found  on  all  statute  books!1 

In  his  encounter  with  Senator  Green,  who  had  suc 
ceeded  him  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories,  Douglas  did  not  appear  to  good  advantage.  It 
was  easy  to  prove  his  first  objection  idle,  as  there  was 
no  slave  property  in  northern  New  Mexico.  As  for 
the  other  objectionable  provisions,  all — by  your  leave! 
—were  to  be  found  in  the  Washington  Territory  Act, 
which  had  passed  through  Douglas's  committee  with 
out  comment.2 

Douglas  proposed  a  substitute  for  the  Colorado  bill, 
nevertheless,  which,  besides  rectifying  these  errors, — 
for  such  he  still  deemed  them  to  be, — proposed  that 
the  people  of  the  Territory  should  elect  their  own 
officers.  He  reminded  the  Senate  that  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  had  been  sharply  criticised,  because 
while  professing  to  recognize  popular  sovereignty,  it 
had  withheld  this  power.  At  that  time,  however,  the 
governor  was  also  an  Indian  agent  and  a  Federal 
officer;  now,  the  two  functions  were  separated.  He 
proposed  that,  henceforth,  the  President  and  Senate 
should  appoint  only  such  officers  as  performed  Federal 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  764. 

2  Ibid. 


458  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

duties.1  When  Senator  Wade  suggested  that  Douglas 
had  experienced  a  conversion  on  this  point,  because 
he  happened  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  incoming  ad 
ministration,  which  would  appoint  the  new  territorial 
officers,  Douglas  referred  to  his  utterances  in  the  last 
session,  as  proof  of  his  disinterestedness  in  the  matter.2 

Even  in  his  role  of  peace-maker,  Douglas  could  not 
help  remarking  that  the  bill  contained  not  a  word 
about  slavery.  "I  am  rejoiced, "  he  said,  somewhat 
ironically,  "to  find  that  the  two  sides  of  the  House, 
representing  the  two  sides  of  the  '  irrepressible  con 
flict/  find  it  impossible  when  they  get  into  power,  to 
practically  carry  on  the  government  without  coming  to 
non-intervention,  and  saying  nothing  upon  the  sub 
ject  of  slavery.  Although  they  may  not  vote  for  my 
proposition,  the  fact  that  they  have  to  avow  the  prin 
ciple  upon  which  they  have  fought  me  for  years  is 
the  only  one  upon  which  they  can  possibly  agree,  is 
conclusive  evidence  that  I  have  been  right  in  that  prin 
ciple,  and  that  they  have  been  wrong  in  fighting  me 
upon  it."3 

In  the  House  the  Colorado  bill  was  amended  by  the 
excision  of  the  clause  providing  for  appeals  to  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  in  all  cases  involving 
title  to  slaves.  Douglas  promptly  pointed  out  the  sig 
nificance  of  this  omission.  The  decisions  of  the  terri 
torial  court  regarding  slavery  would  now  be  final. 
The  question  of  whether  the  territorial  legislature 
might,  or  might  not,  exclude  slavery,  would  now  be 
decided  by  territorial  judges  who  would  be  appointed 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  SPSS.,  p.  764. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  765. 
p.  766. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         459 

by  a  Bepublican  President.1  The  Republicans  now  in 
control  of  the  Senate  were  eager  to  press  their  advan 
tage.  And  Douglas  had  to  acquiesce.  After  all,  the 
practical  importance  of  the  matter  was  not  great.  No 
one  anticipated  that  slavery  ever  would  exist  in  these 
new  Territories. 

The  substitute  which  Douglas  offered  for  the  Colo 
rado  bill,  and  subsequently  for  the  other  territorial 
bills,  deserves  more  than  a  passing  allusion.  Not  only 
was  it  his  last  contribution  to  territorial  legislation, 
but  it  suggested  a  far-reaching  change  in  our  colonial 
policy.  It  was  the  logical  conclusion  of  popular  sover 
eignty  practically  applied.2  Congress  was  invited  to 
abdicate  all  but  the  most  meagre  power  in  organizing 
new  Territories.  The  task  of  framing  an  organic  act 
for  the  government  of  a  Territory  was  to  be  left  to  a 
convention  chosen  by  adult  male  citizens  who  were  in 
actual  residence;  but  this  organic  law  must  be  repub 
lican  in  form,  and  in  every  way  subordinate  to  the  Con 
stitution  and  to  all  laws  and  treaties  affecting  the  In 
dians  and  the  public  lands.  A  Territory  so  organized 
was  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  whenever  its  popula 
tion  should  be  equal  to  the  unit  required  for  representa 
tion  in  the  lower  house  of  Congress.  The  initiative  in 
taking  a  preliminary  census  and  calling  a  territorial 
convention,  was  to  be  taken  by  the  judge  of  the  Federal 
court  in  the  Territory.  The  tutelage  of  the  Federal 
government  was  thus  to  be  reduced  to  lowest  terms. 

Congress  was  to  confine  itself  to  general  provisions 
applicable  to  all  Territories,  leaving  the  formation  of 
new  Territories  to  the  caprice  of  the  people  in  actual 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  1205. 

8  It  is  printed  in  full  in  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  1207. 


460  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

residence.  This  was  a  generous  concession  to  popular 
sovereignty;  but  even  so,  the  paramount  authority 
was  still  vested  in  Congress.  Congress,  and  not  the 
people,  was  to  designate  the  bounds  of  the  Territory ; 
Congress  was  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  republican 
ism  of  the  organic  law,  and  a  Federal  judge  was  to  set 
the  machinery  of  popular  sovereignty  in  motion.  Ob 
viously  the  time  had  passed  when  Congress  would 
make  so  radical  a  departure  from  precedent.  Least  of 
all  were  the  Eepublican  members  disposed  to  weaken 
the  hold  of  the  Federal  government  upon  Territories 
where  the  question  of  slavery  might  again  become 
acute. 

While  the  House  was  unwilling  to  vote  for  a  -sub 
mission  of  the  Crittenden  propositions  to  a  popular 
vote,  it  did  propose  an  amendment  denying  to  Con 
gress  the  power  to  interfere  with  the  domestic  institu 
tions  of  any  State.  Not  being  in  any  sense  a  conces 
sion,  but  only  an  affirmation  of  a  widely  accepted  prin 
ciple,  this  amendment  passed  the  House  easily  enough. 
Yet  in  his  role  of  compromiser,  Douglas  made  much  of 
this  vote.  He  called  Senator  Mason's  attention  to  two 
great  facts — "startling,  tremendous  facts — that  they 
[the  Eepublicans]  have  abandoned  their  aggressive 
policy  in  the  Territories  and  are  willing  to  give  guar 
antees  in  the  States."  These  "ought  to  be  accepted 
as  an  evidence  of  a  salutary  change  in  public  opinion 
at  the  North. 9n  Now  if  the  Republican  party  would 
only  offer  a  similar  guarantee,  by  a  constitutional 
amendment,  that  they  would  never  revive  their  aggres 
sive  policy  toward  slavery  in  the  Territories ! 

As  the  February  days  wore  away,  Douglas  became 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  1391. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         461 

less  hopeful  of  peaceable  adjustment  through  compro 
mise.  If  he  had  counted  upon  large  concessions  from 
Seward,  he  was  disappointed.  If  he  had  entertained 
hopes  of  the  Peace  Conference,  he  had  also  erred 
grievously.  He  became  more  and  more  assured  that 
the  forces  making  against  peace  were  from  the  North 
as  well  as  the  South.  He  told  the  Senate  on  February 
21st,  that  there  was  "a  deliberate  plot  to  break  up  this 
Union  under  pretense  of  preserving  it."1  Privately 
he  feared  the  influence  of  some  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  ad 
visers,  who  were  hostile  to  Seward.  "What  the  Blairs 
really  want,"  he  said  hotly  to  a  friend,  "is  a  civil 
war."2  With  many  another  well-wisher  he  deplored 
the  secret  entrance  of  Mr.  Lincoln  into  the  capital. 
It  seemed  to  him  both  weak  and  undignified,  when 
the  situation  called  for  a  conciliatory,  but  firm,  front.3 
With  an  absence  of  personal  pique  which  did  him 
credit,  he  determined  to  take  the  first  opportunity  to 
warn  Mr.  Lincoln  of  the  dangers  of  his  position.  Doug 
las  knew  Lincoln  far  better  than  the  average  Wash 
ington  politician.  To  an  acquaintance  who'  lamented 
the  apparent  weakness  of  the  President-elect,  Douglas 
said  emphatically,  "No,  he  is  not  that,  Sir;  but  he  is 
eminently  a  man  of  the  atmosphere  which  surrounds 
him.  He  has  not  yet  got  out  of  Springfield,  Sir.  .  .  .  He 
he  does  not  know  that  he  is  President-elect  of  the 
United  States,  Sir,  he  does  not  see  that  the  shadow 
he  casts  is  any  bigger  now  than  it  was  last  year.  It 
will  not  take  him  long  to  find  it  out  when  he  has  got 
established  in  the  White  House."4 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  1081. 

3  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  p.  261. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  260.  4  Ibid.,  p.  261. 


462  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

The  ready  tact  of  Mrs.  Douglas  admirably  seconded 
the  initiative  of  her  husband.  She  was  among  the  first 
to  call  upon  Mrs.  Lincoln,  thereby  setting  the  example 
for  the  ladies  of  the  opposition.1  A  little  incident,  to 
be  sure;  but  in  critical  hours,  the  warp  and  woof  of 
history  is  made  up  of  just  such  little  acts  of  thoughtful 
courtesy.  Washington  society  understood  and  appre 
ciated  the  gracious  spirit  of  Adele  Cutts  Douglas ;  and 
even  the  New  York  press  commented  upon  the  incident 
with  satisfaction. 

That  Seward  and  his  friends  were  no  less  alarmed 
than  Douglas,  at  the  prospect  of  Lincoln's  falling 
under  the  influence  of  the  coercionists,  is  a  matter  of 
record.2  There  were,  indeed,  two  factions  contending 
for  mastery  over  the  incoming  administration.  So  far 
as  an  outsider  could  do  so,  Douglas  was  willing  to  lend 
himself  to  the  schemes  of  the  Seward  faction,  for  in 
so  doing  he  was  obviously  promoting  the  cause  of 
X>eace.3  Three  days  after  Lincoln's  arrival  Douglas 
called  upon  him;  and  on  the  following  evening  (Feb 
ruary  27th)  he  sought  another  private  interview.4  They 
had  long  known  each  other ;  and  politics  aside,  Lincoln 
entertained  a  high  opinion  of  Douglas's  fairmindedness 
and  common  sense.5  They  talked  earnestly  about  the 
Peace  Conference  and  the  efforts  of  extremists  in  Con 
gress  to  make  it  abortive.6  Each  knew  the  other  to  be 
a  genuine  lover  of  the  Union.  Upon  this  common  basis 
of  sentiment  they  could  converse  without  reservations. 

1  Correspondent  of  the  New  York  Times,  February  25,  1861. 

2  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  pp.  260-261.  8  Ibid.,  p.  264. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  264,  268;  the  interview  of  February  26th  was  commented 
upon  by  the  Philadelphia  Press,  February  28. 
B  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  p.  73,  note. 
•Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  p.  268. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         463 

Douglas  was  agitated  and  distressed.1  Compromise 
was  now  impossible  in  Congress.  He  saw  but  one  hope. 
With  great  earnestness  he  urged  Lincoln  to  recommend 
the  instant  calling  of  a  national  convention  to  amend 
the  Constitution.  Upon  the  necessity  of  this  step 
Douglas  and  Seward  agreed.  But  Lincoln  would  not 
commit  himself  to  this  suggestion,  without  further  con 
sideration.2  "It  is  impossible  not  to  feel,"  wrote  an 
old  acquaintance,  after  hearing  Douglas's  account  of 
this  interview,  "that  he  [Douglas]  really  and  truly 
loves  his  country  in  a  way  not  too  common,  I  fear  now, 
in  Washington."3 

The  Senate  remained  in  continuous  session  from 
Saturday,  March  2d,  until  the  oath  of  office  was  taken 
by  Vice-President  Hamlin  on  Monday  morning.  Dur 
ing  these  eventful  hours,  the  Crittenden  amendments 
were  voted  down;4  and  when  the  venerable  senator 
from  Kentucky  made  a  final  effort  to  secure  the  adop 
tion  of  the  resolution  of  the  Peace  Congress,  which 
was  similar  to  his  own,  it  too  was  decisively  defeated.5 
In  the  closing  hours  of  the  session,  however,  in  spite 
of  the  opposition  of  irreconcilables  like  Sumner,  Wade, 
and  Wilson,  the  Senate  adopted  the  amendment  which 
had  passed  the  House,  limiting  the  powers  of  Congress 
in  the  States.6 

While  Union-loving  men  were  thus  wrestling  with  a 
forlorn  hope,  Douglas  was  again  closeted  with  Lincoln. 
It  is  very  probable  that  Douglas  was  invited  to  call,  111 
order  to  pass  judgment  upon  certain  passages  in  the 

1  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  p.  268. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  268.  8  Ibid.,  p.  268. 

4  Globe,  36  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  1405. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  1405.  6  Ibid.f  p.  1403. 


464  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

inaugural  address,  which  would  be  delivered  on  the 
morrow.  At  all  events,  Douglas  exhibited  a  familiarity 
with  portions  of  the  address,  which  can  hardly  be  ac 
counted  for  in  other  ways.  He  expressed  great  satis 
faction  with  Lincoln's  statement  of  the  invalidity  of 
secession.  It  would  do,  he  said,  for  all  constitutional 
Democrats  to  i '  brace  themselves  against. ' n  He  frankly 
announced  that  he  would  stand  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  a 
temperate,  resolute  Union  policy.2 

On  the  forenoon  of  Inauguration  Day,  Douglas  told 
a  friend  that  he  meant  to  put  himself  as  prominently 
forward  in  the  ceremonies  as  he  properly  could,  and  to 
leave  no  doubt  in  any  one's  mind  of  his  determination 
to  stand  by  the  administration  in  the  performance  of 
its  first  great  duty  to  maintain  the  Union.  "I  watched 
him  carefully,"  records  this  same  acquaintance.  "He 
made  his  way  not  without  difficulty — for  there  was 
literally  no  sort  of  order  in  the  arrangements — to  the 
front  of  the  throng  directly  beside  Mr.  Lincoln,  when 
he  prepared  to  read  his  address.  A  miserable  little 
rickety  table  had  been  provided  for  the  President,  on 
which  he  could  hardly  find  room  for  his  hat,  and  Sena 
tor  Douglas,  reaching  forward,  took  it  with  a  smile 
and  held  it  during  the  delivery  of  the  address.  It  was 
a  trifling  act,  but  a  symbolical  one,  and  not  to  be  for 
gotten,  and  it  attracted  much  attention  all  around  me. '  '3 
At  least  one  passage  in  the  inaugural  address  was 
framed  upon  suggestions  made  by  Douglas.  Contrary 
to  his  original  intention,  Lincoln  went  out  of  his  way 
to  say,  "I  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  many 
worthy  and  patriotic  citizens  are  desirous  of  having 

1  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  p.  380. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  379.  •  Mid.,  p.  383. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         465 

the  National  Constitution  amended.  While  I  make  no 
recommendation  of  amendments,  I  fully  recognize  the 
rightful  authority  of  the  people  over- the  whole  subject, 
to  be  exercised  in  either  of  the  modes  prescribed  in  the 
instrument  itself;  and  I  should,  under  existing  cir 
cumstances,  favor  rather  than  oppose  a  fair  oppor 
tunity  being  afforded  the  people  to  act  upon  it.  I  will 
venture  to  add  that  to  me  the  convention  mode  seems 
preferable,  in  that  it  allows  amendments  to  originate 
with  the  people  themselves,  instead  of  only  permitting 
them  to  take  or  reject  propositions  originated  by 
others,  not  especially  chosen  for  the  purpose,  and 
which  might  not  be  precisely  such  as  they  would  wish 
to  either  accept  or  refuse.  I  understand  a  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Constitution — which  amendment, 
however,  I  have  not  seen — has  passed  Congress,  to  the 
effect  that  the  Federal  Government  shall  never  inter 
fere  with  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  States,  in 
cluding  that  of  persons  held  to  service.  To  avoid  mis 
construction  of  what  I  have  said,  I  depart  from  my 
purpose,  not  to  speak  of  particular  amendments,  so  far 
as  to  say  that,  holding  such  a  provision  to  now  be  im 
plied  constitutional  law,  I  have  no  objection  to  its  being 
made  express  and  irrevocable/'1 

In  the  original  draft  of  his  address,  written  before 
he  came  to  Washington,  Lincoln  had  dismissed  with 
scant  consideration  the  notion  of  a  constitutional 
amendment:  "I  am  not  much  impressed  with  the  belief 
that  the  present  Constitution  can  be  improved.  I  am 
rather  for  the  old  ship,  and  the  chart  of  the  old  pilots."2 

1Nicolay  and  Hay,  Lincoln,  III,  pp.  340-341.  These  authors  note 
that  Lincoln  rewrote  this  paragraph,  but  take  it  for  granted  that  he 
did  so  upon  his  own  motion,  after  rejecting  Seward's  suggestion. 

8Nicolay  and  Hay,  Lincoln,  III,  p.  340,  note. 
30 


466  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

Sometime  after  his  interview  with  Douglas,  Lincoln 
struck  out  these  words  and  inserted  the  paragraph 
already  quoted,  rejecting  at  the  same  time  a  suggestion 
from  Seward.1 

The  curious  and  ubiquitous  correspondents  of  the 
New  York  press,  always  on  the  alert  for  straws  to 
learn  which  way  the  wind  was  blowing,  made  much 
of  Douglas's  conspicuous  gallantry  toward  Mrs.  Lin 
coln.  He  accompanied  her  to  the  inaugural  ball  and 
unhesitatingly  defended  his  friendliness  with  the 
President's  household,  on  the  ground  that  Mr.  Lin 
coln  " meant  to  do  what  was  right."  To  one  press 
agent,  eager  to  have  his  opinion  of  the  inaugural, 
Douglas  said,  "I  defend  the  inaugural  if  it  is  as  I 
understand  it,  namely,  an  emanation  from  the  brain 
and  heart  of  a  patriot,  and  as  I  mean,  if  I  know  myself, 
to  act  the  part  of  a  patriot,  I  endorse  it."2 

On  March  6th,  while  Republican  senators  maintained 
an  uncertain  and  discreet  silence  respecting  the  inaug 
ural  address,  Douglas  rose  to  speak  in  its  defense. 
Senator  Clingman  had  interpreted  the  President's 
policy  in  terms  of  his  own  emotions:  there  was  no 
doubt  about  it,  the  inaugural  portended  war.  "In  no 
wise,"  responded  Douglas  with  energy:  "It  is  a 
peace-offering  rather  than  a  war  message."  In  all 
his  long  congressional  career  there  is  nothing  that 
redounds  more  to  Douglas's  everlasting  credit  than 
his  willingness  to  defend  the  policy  of  his  successful 
rival,  while  men  of  Lincoln's  own  party  were  doubting 

1  Seward 's  letter  was  written  on  the  evening  of  February  24th.  Doug 
las  called  upon  the  President  February  26th.  See  Nicolay  and  Hay, 
Lincoln,  III,  p.  319;  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  pp.  264,  268. 

8  New  York  Times,  March  6,  1861. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         467 

what  manner  of  man  the  new  President  was  and  what 
his  policy  might  mean.  Nothing  could  have  been  more 
adroit  than  Douglas's  plea  for  the  inaugural  address. 
He  did  not  throw  himself  into  the  arms  of  the  adminis 
tration  and  betray  his  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
plans  of  the  new  President.  He  spoke  as  the  leader  of 
the  opposition,  critically  and  judiciously.  He  had  read 
the  inaugural  with  care;  he  had  subjected  it  to  a 
critical  analysis ;  and  he  was  of  the  opinion  that  it  was 
characterized  by  ability  and  directness  on  certain 
points,  but  by  lack  of  explicitness  on  others.  He  cited 
passages  that  he  deemed  equivocal  and  objectionable. 
Nevertheless  he  rejoiced  to  read  one  clause  which  was 
evidently  the  key  to  the  entire  document : 

"The  course  here  indicated  will  be  followed  unless 
current  events  and  experience  shall  show  a  modifica 
tion  or  change  to  be  proper,  and  in  every  case  and 
exigency  my  best  discretion  will  be  exercised  accord 
ing  to  circumstances  actually  existing,  and  with  a 
view  and  a  hope  of  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  national 
troubles,  and  the  restoration  of  fraternal  sympathies 
and  affections."1 

By  the  terms  of  his  message,  too,  the  President  was 
pledged  to  favor  such  amendments  as  might  originate 
with  the  people  for  the  settlement  of  the  slavery  ques 
tion, — even  if  the  settlement  should  be  repugnant  to 
the  principles  of  his  party.  Mr.  Lincoln  should  receive 
the  thanks  of  all  Union-loving  men  for  having  "sunk 
the  partisan  in  the  patriot. "  The  voice  of  Douglas 
never  rang  truer  than  when  he  paid  this  tribute  to  his 
rival's  honesty  and  candor. 

"I  do  not  wish  it  to  be  inferred,"  he  said  in  con- 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  Special  Sess.,  p.  1437. 


468  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

elusion,  .  .  .  .  "  that  I  have  any  political  sympathy  with 
his  administration,  or  that  I  expect  any  contingency 
can  happen  in  which  I  may  be  identified  with  it.  I 
expect  to  oppose  his  administration  with  all  my  energy 
on  those  great  principles  which  have  separated  parties 
in  former  times;  but  on  this  one  question — that  of 
preserving  the  Union  by  a  peaceful  solution  of  our 
present  difficulties;  that  of  preventing  any  future 
difficulties  by  such  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution 
as  will  settle  the  question  by  an  express  provision — if 
I  understand  his  true  intent  and  meaning,  I  am  with 
him."1 

But  neither  President  Lincoln  nor  Douglas  had  com 
mitted  himself  on  the  concrete  question  upon  which 
hung  peace  or  war — what  should  be  done  about  Fort 
Sumter  and  Fort  Pickens.  The  point  was  driven  home 
with  relentless  vigor  by  Wigfall,  who  still  lingered 
in  the  Senate  after  the  secession  of  his  State.  "Would 
the  Senator  who  is  speaking  for  the  administration 
say  explicitly,  whether  he  would  advise  the  withdrawal 
of  the  troops  from  the  forts?"  The  reply  of  Douglas 
was  admirable:  "As  I  am  not  in  their  counsels  nor 
their  confidence,  I  shall  not  tender  them  my  advice 
until  they  ask  it.  ...  I  do  not  choose  either,  to  proclaim 
what  my  policy  would  be,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
Senator  does  not  regard  himself  as  the  guardian  of 
the  honor  and  interests  of  my  country,  but  is  looking 
to  the  interests  of  another,  which  he  thinks  is  in  hos 
tility  to  this  country.  It  would  hardly  be  good  policy 
or  wisdom  for  me  to  reveal  what  I  think  ought  to  be 
our  policy,  to  one  who  may  so  soon  be  in  the  counsels 
of  the  enemy,  and  the  command  of  its  armies."2 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  Special  Sess.,  p.  1438.  *Ibid.,  p.  1442. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT          469 

Douglas  did  admit,  however,  that  since  the  garrison 
of  Fort  Sumter  had  provisions  for  only  thirty  days, 
he  presumed  no  attempt  would  be  made  to  reinforce 
it.  Under  existing  circumstances  the  President  had 
no  power  to  collect  the  revenues  of  the  government 
and  no  military  force  sufficient  to  reinforce  Sumter. 
Congress  was  not  in  session  to  supply  either  the 
necessary  coercive  powers  or  troops.  He  therefore 
drew  the  conclusion  that  not  only  the  President  him 
self  was  pacific  in  his  policy,  but  the  Republican  party 
as  well,  despite  the  views  of  individual  members. 
"But,"  urged  Mason  of  Virginia,  "I  ask  the  Senator, 
then,  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  garrison  if  they  are 
in  a  starving  condition?"  "If  the  Senator  had  voted 
right  in  the  last  presidential  election,"  replied  Doug 
las  good-naturedly,  "I  should  have  been  in  a  condition, 
perhaps,  to  tell  him  authoritatively  what  ought  to  be 
done." 

From  this  moment  on,  Douglas  enjoyed  the  con 
fidence  of  President  Lincoln  to  an  extraordinary 
degree.  No  one  knew  better  than  Lincoln  the  impor 
tance  of  securing  the  cooperation  of  so  influential  a 
personage.  True,  by  the  withdrawal  of  Southern 
senators,  the  Democratic  opposition  had  been  greatly 
reduced ;  but  Douglas  was  still  a  power  in  this  Demo 
cratic  remnant.  Besides,  the  man  who  could  com 
mand  the  suffrages  of  a  million  voters  was  not  a  force 
lightly  to  be  reckoned  with.  After  this  speech  of  the 
6th,  Lincoln  again  sent  for  Douglas,  to  express  his 
entire  agreement  with  its  views  and  with  its  spirit.1 
He  gave  Douglas  the  impression  that  he  desired  to 
gain  time  for  passions  to  cool  by  removing  the  causes 

1  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  p.  493. 


470  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

of  irritation.  He  felt  confident  that  there  would  soon 
be  a  general  demand  for  a  national  convention  where 
all  existing  differences  could  be  radically  treated. 
"I  am  just  as  ready, "  Douglas  reported  him  to  have 
said,  "to  reinforce  the  garrisons  at  Sumter  and  Pick- 
ens  or  to  withdraw  them,  as  I  am  to  see  an  amendment 
adopted  protecting  slavery  in  the  Territories  or  pro 
hibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories.  What  I  want  is  to 
get  done  what  the  people  desire  to  have  done,  and  the 
question  for  me  is  how  to  find  that  out  exactly. "*  On 
this  point  they  were  in  entire  accord. 

The  patriotic  conduct  of  Douglas  earned  for  him  the 
warm  commendation  of  Northern  newspapers,  many 
of  which  had  hitherto  been  incapable  of  ascribing 
honorable  motives  to  him.2  No  one  who  met  him  at 
the  President's  levees  would  have  suspected  that  he 
had  been  one  of  his  host's  most  relentless  opponents. 
A  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Times  described 
him  as  he  appeared  at  one  of  these  functions.  "Here 
one  minute,  there  the  next — now  congratulating  the 
President,  then  complimenting  Mrs.  Lincoln,  bowing 
and  scraping,  and  shaking  hands,  and  smiling,  laugh 
ing,  yarning  and  saluting  the  crowd  of  people  whom  he 
knew."  More  soberly,  this  same  observer  added,  "He 
has  already  done  a  great  deal  of  good  to  the  adminis 
tration."8  It  is  impossible  to  find  the  soured  and  dis 
comfited  rival  in  this  picture. 

The  country  was  anxiously  awaiting  the  develop 
ment  of  the  policy  of  the  new  Executive,  for  to  eight 

1  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  p.  493. 

2  New   York    Times,   March    8,    1861;     also    the   Philadelphia   Press, 
March  11,  1861. 

8  New  York  Times,  March  10,  1861. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         471 

out  of  every  ten  men,  Lincoln  was  still  an  unknown 
man.  Eumors  were  abroad  that  both  Sumter  and 
Pickens  would  be  surrendered.1  Seward  was  known 
to  be  conciliatory  on  this  point;  and  the  man  on  the 
street  never  once  doubted  that  Seward  would  be  the 
master-mind  in  the  cabinet.  Those  better  informed 
knew — and  Douglas  was  among  them — that  Seward 's 
influence  was  menaced  by  an  aggressive  faction  in  the 
cabinet.2  Behind  these  official  advisers,  giving  them 
active  support,  were  those  Republican  senators  who 
from  the  first  had  doubted  the  efficacy  of  compromise. 
Believing  the  country  should  have  assurances  that 
President  Lincoln  did  not  meditate  war, — did  not,  in 
short,  propose  to  yield  to  the  aggressive  wing  of  his 
party, — Douglas  sought  to  force  a  show  of  hands.3  On 
March  13th,  he  offered  a  resolution  which  was  designed 
to  draw  the  fire  of  Republican  senators.  The  Secre 
tary  of  War  was  requested  to  furnish  information 
about  the  Southern  forts  now  in  possession  of  the 
Federal  government ;  to  state  whether  reinforcements 
were  needed  to  retain  them;  whether  under  existing 
laws  the  government  had  the  power  and  means  to  rein 
force  them,  and  whether  it  was  wise  to  retain  military 
possession  of  such  forts  and  to  recapture  those  that 
had  been  lost,  except  for  the  purpose  of  subjugating 
and  occupying  the  States  which  had  seceded;  and 
finally,  if  such  were  the  motives,  to  supply  estimates 
of  the  military  force  required  to  reduce  the  seceding 
States  and  to  protect  the  national  capital.4  The  word- 

1  Rhodes  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  p.  332. 

2  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  p.  493. 
37&id,  pp.  495-496. 

*  Globe,  36  Cong.,  Special  Sess.,  p.  1452. 


472  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

ing  of  the  resolution  was  purposely  involved.  Doug 
las  hoped  that  it  would  precipitate  a  discussion  which 
would  disclose  the  covert  wish  of  the  aggressives,  and 
force  an  authoritative  announcement  of  President 
Lincoln's  policy.  Doubtless  there  was  a  political 
motive  behind  all  this.  Douglas  was  not  averse  to 
putting  his  bitter  and  implacable  enemies  in  their  true 
light,  as  foes  of  compromise  even  to  the  extent  of 
disrupting  the  Union.1 

Not  receiving  any  response,  Douglas  took  the  floor 
in  defense  of  his  resolution.  He  believed  that  the 
country  should  have  the  information  which  his  reso 
lution  was  designed  to  elicit.  The  people  were  appre 
hensive  of  civil  war.  He  had  put  his  construction 
upon  the  President's  inaugural;  but  "the  Eepublican 
side  of  the  Chamber  remains  mute  and  silent,  neither 
assenting  nor  dissenting."  The  answer  which  he  be 
lieved  the  resolution  would  call  forth,  would  demon 
strate  two  points  of  prime  importance:  "First,  that 
the  President  does  not  meditate  war;  and,  secondly, 
that  he  has  no  means  for  prosecuting  a  warfare  upon 
the  seceding  States,  even  if  he  desired." 

With  his  wonted  dialectic  skill  Douglas  sought  to 
establish  his  case.  The  existing  laws  made  no  pro 
vision  for  collecting  the  revenue  on  shipboard.  It 
was  admitted  on  all  sides  that  collection  at  the  port 
of  entry  in  South  Carolina  was  impossible.  The  Presi 
dent  had  no  legal  right  to  blockade  the  port  of  Charles 
ton.  He  could  not  employ  the  army  to  enforce  the 
laws  in  the  seceded  States,  for  the  military  could  be 
used  only  to  aid  a  civil  process;  and  where  was  the 
marshal  in  South  Carolina  to  execute  a  writ?  The 

1  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  pp.  495-496. 


MERGING  OF  PARTISAN  IN  PATRIOT         473 

President  must  have  known  that  he  lacked  these 
powers.  He  must  have  referred  to  the  future  action 
of  Congress,  then,  when  he  said  that  he  should  execute 
the  laws  in  all  the  States,  unless  the  "requisite  means 
were  withheld."  But  Congress  had  not  passed  laws 
empowering  the  Executive  to  collect  revenue  or  to 
gain  possession  of  the  forts.  What,  then,  was  the  in 
ference!  Clearly  this,  that  the  Republican  senators 
did  not  desire  to  confer  these  powers. 

If  this  inference  is  not  correct,  if  this  interpretation 
of  the  inaugural  address  is  faulty,  urged  Douglas,  why 
preserve  this  impenetrable  silence!  Why  not  let  the 
people  know  what  the  policy  of  the  administration  is! 
They  have  a  right  to  know.  "The  President  of  the 
United  States  holds  the  destiny  of  this  country  in  his 
hands.  I  believe  he  means  peace,  and  war  will  be 
averted,  unless  he  is  overruled  by  the  disunion  portion 
of  his  party.  We  all  know  the  irrepressible  conflict 
is  going  on  in  their  camp.  .  .  .  Then,  throw  aside  this 
petty  squabble  about  how  you  are  to  get  along  with 
your  pledges  before  election;  meet  the  issues  as  they 
are  presented;  do  what  duty,  honor,  and  patriotism 
require,  and  appeal  to  the  people  to  sustain  you.  Peace 
is  the  only  policy  that  can  save  the  country  or  save 
your  party."1 

On  the  Republican  side  of  the  chamber,  this  appeal 
was  bitterly  resented.  It  met  with  no  adequate  re 
sponse,  because  there  was  none  to  give;  but  Wilson 
roundly  denounced  it  as  a  wicked,  mischief -making 
utterance.2  Unhappily,  Douglas  allowed  himself  to 
be  drawn  into  a  personal  altercation  with  Fessenden, 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  Special  Sess.,  p  1461. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1461. 


474  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

in  which  he  lost  his  temper  and  marred  the  effect  of 
his  patriotic  appeal.  There  was  probably  some  truth 
in  Douglas's  charge  that  both  senators  intended  to  be 
personally  irritating.1  Under  the  circumstances,  it 
was  easier  to  indulge  in  personal  disparagement  of 
Douglas,  than  to  meet  his  embarrassing  questions. 

How  far  Douglas  still  believed  in  the  possibility  of 
saving  the  Union  through  compromise,  it  is  impossible 
to  say.  Publicly  he  continued  to  talk  in  an  optimistic 
strain.2  On  March  25th,  he  expressed  his  satisfaction 
in  the  Senate  that  only  one  danger-point  remained; 
Fort  Sumter,  he  understood,  was  to  be  evacuated.3 
But  among  his  friends  no  one  looked  into  the  future 
with  more  anxiety  than  he.  Intimations  from  the 
South  that  citizens  of  the  United  States  would  prob 
ably  be  excluded  from  the  courts  of  the  Confederacy, 
wrung  from  him  the  admission  that  such  action  would 
be  equivalent  to  war.4  He  noted  anxiously  the  evident 
purpose  of  the  Confederated  States  to  coerce  Kentucky 
and  Virginia  into  secession.5  Indeed,  it  is  probable 
that  before  the  Senate  adjourned,  his  ultimate  hope 
was  to  rally  the  Union  men  in  the  border  States.6 

When  President  Lincoln  at  last  determined  to  send 
supplies  to  Fort  Sumter,  the  issue  of  peace  or  war 
rested  with  Jefferson  Davis  and  his  cabinet  at  Mont 
gomery.  Early  on  the  morning  of  April  12th,  a  shell, 
fired  from  a  battery  in  Charleston  harbor,  burst 
directly  over  Fort  Sumter,  proclaiming  to  anxious  ears 
the  close  of  an  era. 

1  Globe,  36  Cong.,  Special  Sess.,  p.  1465. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  1460,  1501,  1504.  8  Ibid.,  p.  1501. 
4  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,  p.  494.                          6  Ibid.,  p.  494. 

6  Globe,  36  Cong.,  Special  Sess.,  pp.  1505,  1511. 


CHAPTER  XX 

THE  SUMMONS 

The  news  of  the  capitulation  of  Fort  Sumter  reached 
Washington  on  Sunday  morning,  April  14th.  At  a 
momentous  cabinet  meeting,  President  Lincoln  read 
the  draft  of  a  proclamation  calling  into  service  seventy- 
five  thousand  men,  to  suppress  combinations  obstruct 
ing  the  execution  of  the  laws  in  the  Southern  States. 
The  cabinet  was  now  a  unit.  Now  that  the  crisis  had 
come,  the  administration  had  a  policy.  Would  it  ap 
prove  itself  to  the  anxious  people  of  the  North  ?  Could 
it  count  upon  the  support  of  those  who  had  counselled 
peace,  peace  at  any  cost! 

Those  who  knew  Senator  Douglas  well  could  not 
doubt  his  loyalty  to  the  Union  in  this  crisis;  yet  his 
friends  knew  that  Union-loving  men  in  the  Democratic 
ranks  would  respond  to  the  President's  proclamation 
with  a  thousandfold  greater  enthusiasm,  could  they 
know  that  their  leader  stood  by  the  administration. 
Moved  by  these  considerations,  Hon.  George  Ashmun 
of  Massachusetts  ventured  to  call  upon  Douglas  on  this 
Sunday  evening,  and  to  suggest  the  propriety  of  some 
public  statement  to  strengthen  the  President's  hands. 
Would  he  not  call  upon  the  President  at  once  and  give 
him  the  assurance  of  his  support  ?  Douglas  demurred : 
he  was  not  sure  that  Mr.  Lincoln  wanted  his  advice 
and  aid.  Mr.  Ashmun  assured  him  that  the  President 
would  welcome  any  advances,  and  he  spoke  advisedly 
as  a  friend  to  both  men.  The  peril  of  the  country  was 

475 


476  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

grave;  surely  this  was  not  a  time  when  men  should 
let  personal  and  partisan  considerations  stand  between 
them  and  service  to  their  country.  Mrs.  Douglas 
added  her  entreaties,  and  Douglas  finally  yielded. 
Though  the  hour  was  late,  the  two  men  set  off  for  the 
White  House,  and  found  there  the  hearty  welcome 
which  Ashmun  had  promised.1 

Of  all  the  occurrences  of  this  memorable  day,  this 
interview  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas  strikes  the 
imagination  with  most  poignant  suggestiveness.  Had 
Douglas  been  a  less  generous  opponent,  he  might  have 
reminded  the  President  that  matters  had  come  to  just 
that  pass  which  he  had  foreseen  in  1858.  Nothing  of 
the  sort  passed  Douglas's  lips.  The  meeting  of  the 
rivals  was  most  cordial  and  hearty.  They  held  con 
verse  as  men  must  when  hearts  are  oppressed  with  a 
common  burden.  The  President  took  up  and  read 
aloud  the  proclamation  summoning  the  nation  to  arms. 
When  he  had  done,  Douglas  said  with  deep  earnest 
ness,  "Mr.  President,  I  cordially  concur  in  every  word 
of  that  document,  except  that  instead  of  the  call  for 
seventy-five  thousand  men,  I  would  make  it  two  hun 
dred  thousand.  You  do  not  know  the  dishonest  pur 
poses  of  those  men  as  well  as  I  do."2  Wiry  has  not 
some  artist  seized  upon  the  dramatic  moment  when 
they  rose  and  passed  to  the  end  of  the  room  to  examine 
a  map  which  hung  there?  Douglas,  with  animated 
face  and  impetuous  gesture,  pointing  out  the  strategic 
places  in  the  coining  contest;  Lincoln,  with  the  sug 
gestion  of  brooding  melancholy  upon  his  careworn 
face,  listening  in  rapt  attention  to  the  quick,  penetrat- 

1  Holland,  Life  of  Lincoln,  p.  301. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  302. 


THE  SUMMONS  477 

ing  observations  of  his  life-long  rival.  But  what  no 
artist  could  put  upon  canvas  was  the  dramatic  ab 
sence  of  resentment  and  defeated  ambition  in  the  one, 
and  the  patient  teachableness  and  self-mastery  of  the 
other.  As  they  parted,  a  quick  hearty  grasp  of  hands 
symbolized  this  remarkable  consecration  to  a  common 
task. 

As  they  left  the  executive  mansion,  Ashmun  urged 
his  companion  to  send  an  account  of  this  interview  to 
the  press,  that  it  might  accompany  the  President's 
message  on  the  morrow.  Douglas  then  penned  the 
following  dispatch:  "Senator  Douglas  called  upon 
the  President,  and  had  an  interesting  conversation  on 
the  present  condition  of  the  country.  The  substance 
of  it  was,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Douglas,  that  while  he 
was  unalterably  opposed  to  the  administration  in  all 
its  political  issues,  he  was  prepared  to  fully  sustain 
the  President  in  the  exercise  of  all  his  constitutional 
functions,  to  preserve  the  Union,  maintain  the  govern 
ment,  and  defend  the  Federal  capital.  A  firm  policy 
and  prompt  action  was  necessary.  The  capital  was  in 
danger,  and  must  be  defended  at  all  hazards,  and  at  any 
expense  of  men  and  money.  He  spoke  of  the  present 
and  future  without  any  reference  to  the  past."1  When 
the  people  of  the  North  read  the  proclamation  in  the 
newspapers,  on  the  following  morning,  a  million  men 
were  cheered  and  sustained  in  their  loyalty  to  the  Union 
by  the  intelligence  that  their  great  leader  had  subor 
dinated  all  lesser  ends  of  party  to  the  paramount  duty 
of  maintaining  the  Constitution  of  the  fathers.  To  his 
friends  in  Washington,  Douglas  said  unhesitatingly, 

1  Arnold,  Lincoln,  pp.  200-201.  The  date  of  this  dispatch  should  be 
April  14,  and  not  April  18. 


478  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

"We  must  fight  for  our  country  and  forget  all  differ 
ences.  There  can  be  but  two  parties — the  party  of 
patriots  and  the  party  of  traitors.  We  belong  to  the 
first/'1  And  to  friends  in  Missouri  where  disunion 
sentiment  was  rife,  he  telegraphed,  "I  deprecate  war, 
but  if  it  must  come  I  am  with  my  country,  and  for  my 
country,  under  all  circumstances  and  in  every  contin 
gency.  Individual  policy  must  be  subordinated  to  the 
public  safety."2 

From  this  day  on,  Douglas  was  in  frequent  consul 
tation  with  the  President.  The  sorely  tried  and 
distressed  Lincoln  was  unutterably  grateful  for  the 
firm  grip  which  this  first  of  "War  Democrats "  kept 
upon  the  progress  of  public  opinion  in  the  irresolute 
border  States.  It  was  during  one  of  these  interviews, 
after  the  attack  upon  the  Sixth  Massachusetts  Kegi- 
ment  in  the  streets  of  Baltimore,  that  Douglas  urged 
upon  the  President  the  possibility  of  bringing  troops  by 
water  to  Annapolis,  thence  to  Washington,  thus  avoid 
ing  further  conflict  in  the  disaffected  districts  of  Mary 
land.3  Eventually  the  Eighth  Massachusetts  and  the 
Seventh  New  York  reached  Washington  by  this  route, 
to  the  immense  relief  of  the  President  and  his  cabinet. 

Before  this  succor  came  to  the  alarmed  capital, 
Douglas  had  left  the  city  for  the  West.  He  had  re 
ceived  intimations  that  Egypt  in  his  own  State  showed 
marked  symptoms  of  disaffection.  The  old  ties  of 
blood  and  kinship  of  the  people  of  southern  Illinois 
with  their  neighbors  in  the  border  States  were  proving 
stronger  than  Northern  affiliations.  Douglas  wielded 
an  influence  in  these  southern,  Democratic  counties, 

1  Forney,  Anecdotes,  I,  p.  224.         2  New  York  Tribune,  April  18. 
*  Forney,  Anecdotes,  I,  p.  225. 


THE  SUMMONS  479 

such  as  no  other  man  possessed.  Could  he  not  best 
serve  the  administration  by  bearding  disunionism  in 
its  den?  Believing  that  Cairo,  at  the  confluence  of 
the  Mississippi  and  the  Ohio,  was  destined  to  be  a 
strategic  point  of  immense  importance  in  the  coming 
struggle,  and  that  the  fate  of  the  whole  valley  depended 
upon  the  unwavering  loyalty  of  Illinois,  Douglas  laid 
the  matter  before  Lincoln.  lie  would  go  or  stay  in 
Washington,  wherever  Lincoln  thought  he  could  do  the 
most  good.  Probably  neither  then  realized  the  tre 
mendous  nature  of  the  struggle  upon  which  the  coun 
try  had  entered;  yet  both  knew  that  the  Northwest 
would  be  the  makeweight  in  the  balance  for  the  Union ; 
and  that  every  nerve  must  be  strained  to  hold  the 
border  States  of  Kentucky  and  Missouri.  Who  could 
rouse  the  latent  Unionism  of  the  Northwest  and  of  the 
border  States  like  Douglas!  Lincoln  advised  him  to 
go.  There  was  a  quick  hand-grasp,  a  hurried  farewell, 
and  they  parted  never  to  meet  again.1 

Kurnor  gave  strange  shapes  to  this  "mission"  which 
carried  Douglas  in  such  haste  to  the  Northwest.  Most 
persistent  of  all  is  the  tradition  that  he  was  authorized 
to  raise  a  huge  army  in  the  States  of  the  upper  Missis 
sippi  Valley,  and  to  undertake  that  vast  flanking  move 
ment  which  subsequently  fell  to  Grant  and  Sherman 
to  execute.  Such  a  project  would  have  been  thor 
oughly  consonant  with  Douglas's  conviction  of  the 
inevitable  unity  and  importance  of  the  great  valley; 
but  evidence  is  wanting  to  corroborate  this  legend.2 

1  Herndon-Weik,   Lincoln,    II,   p.    249    note ;    Forney,   Anecdotes,    I, 
p.  225. 

2  Many  friends  of  Douglas  have  assured  me  of  their  unshaken  be 
lief  in  this  story. 


480  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

Its  frequent  repetition,  then  and  now,  must  rather  be 
taken  as  a  popular  recognition  of  the  complete  accord 
between  the  President  and  the  greatest  of  War  Demo 
crats.  Colonel  Forney,  who  stood  very  near  to  Doug 
las,  afterward  stated  "by  authority, "  that  President 
Lincoln  would  eventually  have  called  Douglas  into  the 
administration  or  have  placed  him  in  one  of  the  highest 
military  commands.1  Such  importance  may  be  given 
to  this  testimony  as  belongs  to  statements  which  have 
passed  unconfirmed  and  unchallenged  for  half  a 
century. 

On  his  way  to  Illinois,  Douglas  missed  a  train  and 
was  detained  half  a  day  in  the  little  town  of  Bellaire, 
Ohio,  a  few  miles  below  Wheeling  in  Virginia.2  It 
was  a  happy  accident,  for  just  across  the  river  the 
people  of  northwestern  Virginia  were  meditating  re 
sistance  to  the  secession  movement,  which  under  the 
guidance  of  Governor  Letcher  threatened  to  sever  them 
from  the  Union-loving  population  of  Ohio  and  Pennsyl 
vania  It  was  precisely  in  this  region,  nearly  a  hun 
dred  years  before,  that  popular  sovereignty  had  almost 
succeeded  in  forming  a  fourteenth  State  of  the  Con 
federacy.  There  had  always  been  a  disparity  between 
the  people  of  these  transmontane  counties  and  the 
tide-water  region.  The  intelligence  that  Douglas  was 
in  Bellaire  speedily  brought  a  throng  about  the  hotel 
in  which  he  was  resting.  There  were  clamors  for  a 
speech.  In  the  afternoon  he  yielded  to  their  impor 
tunities.  By  this  time  the  countryside  was  aroused. 
People  came  across  the  river  from  Virginia  and  many 

1  Forney,  Anecdotes,  I,  pp.  121,  226. 
3  Philadelphia  Press,  April  26,  1861. 


THE  SUMMONS  481 

came  down  by  train  from  Wheeling.1  Men  who  were 
torn  by  a  conflict  of  sentiments,  not  knowing  where 
their  paramount  allegiance  lay,  hung  upon  his  words. 

Douglas  spoke  soberly  and  thoughtfully,  not  as 
a  Democrat,  not  as  a  Northern  man,  but  simply  and 
directly  as  a  lover  of  the  Union.  "If  we  recognize  the 
right  of  secession  in  one  case,  we  give  our  assent  to  it 
in  all  cases ;  and  if  the  few  States  upon  the  Gulf  are 
now  to  separate  themselves  from  us.  and  erect  a 
barrier  across  the  mouth  of  that  great  river  of  which 
the  Ohio  is  a  tributary,  how  long  will  it  be  before  New 
York  may  come  to  the  conclusion  that  she  may  set  up 
for  herself,  and  levy  taxes  upon  every  dollar's  worth  of 
goods  imported  and  consumed  in  the  Northwest,  and 
taxes  upon  every  bushel  of  wheat,  and  every  pound  of 
pork,  or  beef,  or  other  productions  that  may  be  sent 
from  the  Northwest  to  the  Atlantic  in  search  of  a 
market  ?"  Secession  meant  endless  division  and  sub-\ 
division,  the  formation  of  petty  confederacies,  appeals 
to  the  sword  and  the  bayonet  instead  of  to  the  ballot. 

" Unite  as  a  band  of  brothers,"  he  pleaded,  "and  res 
cue  your  government  and  its  capital  and  your  country 
from  the  enemy  who  have  been  the  authors  of  your 
calamity."  His  eye  rested  upon  the  great  river. 
"Ah!"  he  exclaimed,  a  great  wave  of  emotion  check 
ing  his  utterance,  "This  great  valley  must  never  be 
divided.  The  Almighty  has  so  arranged  the  mountain 
and  the  plain,  and  the  water-courses  as  to  show  that 
this  valley  in  all  time  shall  remain  one  and  indissoluble. 
Let  no  man  attempt  to  sunder  what  Divine  Providence 
has  rendered  indivisible."2 

1  Philadelphia  Press,  April  26,  1861. 

2  The  Philadelphia  Press,  April  26,  1861,  reprinted  the  speech  from  the 
Wheeling  Intelligencer  of  April  21,  1861. 

31 


482  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

As  he  concluded,  anxious  questions  were  put  to  him, 
regarding  the  rumored  retirement  of  General  Scott 
from  the  army.  "I  saw  him  only  Saturday/'  replied 
Douglas.  "He  was  at  his  desk,  pen  in  hand,  writing 
his  orders  for  the  defense  and  safety  of  the  American 
Capital."  And  as  he  repeated  the  words  of  General 
Scott  declining  the  command  of  the  forces  of  Virginia — 
"  'I  have  served  my  country  under  the  flag  of  the  Union 
for  more  than  fifty  years,  and  as  long  as  God  permits 
me  to  live,  I  will  defend  that  flag  with  my  sword ;  even 
if  my  own  State  assails  it,'  " — the  crowds  around  him 
broke  into  tumultuous  cheers.  Within  thirty  days  the 
Unionists  of  western  Virginia  had  rallied,  organized, 
and  begun  that  hardy  campaign  which  brought  West 
Virginia  into  the  Union.  On  the  very  day  that  Doug 
las  was  making  his  fervent  plea  for  the  Union,  Eobert 
E.  Lee  cast  in  his  lot  with  the  South. 

At  Columbus,  Douglas  was  again  forced  to  break  his 
journey;  and  again  he  was  summoned  to  address  the 
crowd  that  gathered  below  his  window.  It  was  already 
dark ;  the  people  had  collected  without  concert ;  there 
were  no  such  trappings  as  had  characterized  public 
demonstrations  in  the  late  campaign.  Douglas  ap 
peared  half-dressed  at  his  bedroom  window,  a  dim  ob 
ject  to  all  save  to  those  who  stood  directly  below  him. 
Out  of  the  darkness  came  his  solemn,  sonorous  tones, 
bringing  relief  and  assurance  to  all  who  listened,  for 
in  the  throng  were  men  of  all  parties,  men  who  had 
followed  him  through  all  changes  of  political  weather, 
and  men  who  had  been  his  persistent  foes.  There  was 
little  cheering.  As  Douglas  pledged  anew  his  hearty 
support  to  President  Lincoln,  "it  was  rather  a  deep 
'Amen'  that  went  up  from  the  crowd,"  wrote  one  who 


THE  SUMMONS  483 

had  distrusted  hitherto  the  mighty  power  of  this  great 
popular  leader.1 

On  the  25th  of  April,  Douglas  reached  Springfield, 
where  he  purposed  to  make  his  great  plea  for  the 
Union.  He  spoke  at  the  Capitol  to  members  of  the 
legislature  and  to  packed  galleries.  Friend  and  foe 
alike  bear  witness  to  the  extraordinary  effect  wrought 
by  his  words.  "I  do  not  think  that  it  is  possible  for  a 
human  being  to  produce  a  more  prodigious  effect  with 
spoken  words,"  wrote  one  who  had  formerly  detested 
him.2  "  Never  in  all  my  experience  in  public  life,  be 
fore  or  since,"  testified  the  then  Speaker  of  the  House, 
now  high  in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  "have  I  been  so 
impressed  by  a  speaker."3  Douglas  himself  was  thrilled 
with  his  message.  As  he  approached  the  climax, 
the  veins  of  his  neck  and  forehead  were  swollen  with 
passion,  and  the  perspiration  ran  down  his  face  in 
streams.  At  times  his  clear  and  resonant  voice  rever 
berated  through  the  chamber,  until  it  seemed  to  shake 
the  building.4  While  he  was  in  the  midst  of  a  passion 
ate  invective,  a  man  rushed  into  the  hall  bearing  an 
American  flag.  The  trumpet  tones  of  the  speaker  and 
the  sight  of  the  Stars  and  Stripes  roused  the  audience 
to  the  wildest  pitch  of  excitement.5  Men  and  women 
became  hysterical  with  the  divine  madness  of  patriot 
ism.  "When  hostile  armies,"  he  exclaimed  with 
amazing  force,  "When  hostile  armies  are  marching 
under  new  and  odious  banners  against  the  govern- 

1  J.  D.  Cox,  Military  Reminiscences  of  the  Civil  War,  I,  pp.  5-6. 

2  Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  pp.  126-127. 

8  Senator  Cullom  of  Illinois,  quoted  in  Arnold,  Lincoln,  p.  201,  note. 

4  Mr.  Horace  White  in  Herndon-Weik,  Lincoln,  II,  pp.  126-127. 

5  Arnold,  Lincoln,  p.  201,  note. 


484  STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS 

ment  of  our  country,  the  shortest  way  to  peace  is  the 
most  stupendous  and  unanimous  preparation  for  war. 
We  in  the  great  valley  of  the  Mississippi  have  peculiar 
interests  and  inducements  in  the  struggle.  ...  I  ask 
every  citizen  in  the  great  basin  between  the  Rocky 
Mountains  and  the  Alleghanies  ....  to  tell  me  whether 
he  is  ever  willing  to  sanction  a  line  of  policy  that  may 
isolate  us  from  the  markets  of  the  world,  and  make  us 
dependent  provinces  upon  the  powers  that  thus  choose 
to  isolate  us!  ....  Hence,  if  a  war  does  come,  it  is  a 
war  of  self-defense  on  our  part.  It  is  a  war  in  defense 
of  the  Government  which  we  have  inherited  as  a  price 
less  legacy  from  our  patriotic  fathers,  in  defense  of 
those  great  rights  of  freedom  of  trade,  commerce, 
transit  and  intercourse  from  the  center  to  the  circum 
ference  of  our  great  continent."1 

The  voice  of  the  strong  man,  so  little  given  to  weak 
sentiment,  broke,  as  he  said,  "I  have  struggled  almost 
against  hope  to  avert  the  calamities  of  war  and  to 
effect  a  reunion  and  reconciliation  with  our  brethren 
in  the  South.  I  yet  hope  it  may  be  done,  but  I  am  not 
able  to  point  out  how  it  may  be.  Nothing  short  of 
Providence  can  reveal  to  us  the  issues  of  this  great 
struggle.  Bloody — calamitous — I  fear  it  will  be.  May 
we  so  conduct  it,  if  a  collision  must  come,  that  we  will 
stand  justified  in  the  eyes  of  Him  who  knows  our 
hearts,  and  who  will  justify  our  every  act.  We  must 
not  yield  to  resentments,  nor  to  the  spirit  of  vengeance, 
much  less  to  the  desire  for  conquest  or  ambition.  I 
see  no  path  of  ambition  open  in  a  bloody  struggle  for 
triumphs  over  my  countrymen.  There  is  no  path  of 

lrThe  speech  was  printed  in  full  in  the  New  York  Tribune,  May  1, 
1861. 


THE  SUMMONS  485 

ambition  open  for  me  in  a  divided  country.  .  .  .  My 


friends,  I  can  say  no  more,  ^fo  discuss  these  topics  is 
the  most  painful  duty  of  my  life.  It  is  with  a  sad 
heart  —  with  a  grief  I  have  never  before  experienced  — 
that  I  have  to  contemplate  this  fearful  struggle;  but 
T  believe  in  my  conscience  that  it  is  a  duty  we  owe  to 
ourselves  and  to  our  children,  and  to  our  God,  to  pro 
tect  this  Government  and  that  flag  from  every  assail 
ant,  be  he  who  he  may.^3 

Thereafter  treason  had  no  abiding  place  within  the 
limits  of  the  State  of  Illinois.  And  no  one,  it  may  be 
safely  affirmed,  could  have  so  steeled  the  hearts  of  men 
in  Southern  Illinois  for  the  death  grapple.  In  a  manly 
passage  in  his  speech,  Douglas  said,  "I  believe  I  may 
with  confidence  appeal  to  the  people  of  every  section 
of  the  country  to  bear  witness  that  I  have  been  as 
thoroughly  national  as  any  man  that  has  lived  in  my 
day.  And  I  believe  if  I  should  make  an  appeal  to  the 
people  of  Illinois,  or  of  the  Northern  States,  to  their 
impartial  verdict  ;  they  would  say  that  whatever  errors 
I  have  committed  have  been  in  leaning  too  far  to  the 
Southern  section  of  the  Union  against  my  own.  ...  I 
have  never  pandered  to  the  prejudice  and  passion  of 
my  section  against  the  minority  section  of  the  Union.  " 
It  was  precisely  this  truth  which  gave  him  a  hearing 
through  the  length  and  breadth  of  Illinois  and  the 
Northwest  during  this  crisis. 

The  return  of  Douglas  to  Chicago  was  the  signal 
for  a  remarkable  demonstration  of  regard.  He  had 
experienced  many  strange  home-comings.  His  Demo 
cratic  following,  not  always  discriminating,  had  ever 
accorded  him  noisy  homage.  His  political  opponents 
had  alternately  execrated  him  and  given  him  grudging 


486  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

praise.  But  never  before  had  men  of  all  parties,  bury 
ing  their  differences,  united  to  do  him  honor.  On  the 
evening  of  his  arrival,  he  was  escorted  to  the  Wigwam, 
where  hardly  a  year  ago  Lincoln  had  been  nominated 
for  the  presidency.  Before  him  were  men  who  had 
participated  jubilantly  in  the  Republican  campaign, 
with  many  a  bitter  gibe  at  the  champion  of  "squatter 
sovereignty. "  Douglas  could  not  conceal  his  gratifi 
cation  at  this  proof  that,  however  men  had  differed 
from  him  on  political  questions,  they  had  believed  in 
his  loyalty.  And  it  was  of  loyalty,  not  of  himself,  that 
he  spoke.  He  did  not  spare  Southern  feelings  before 
this  Chicago  audience.  He  told  his  hearers  unequivo 
cally  that  the  slavery  question,  the  election  of  Lincoln, 
and  the  territorial  question,  were  so  many  pretexts 
for  dissolving  the  Union.  "The  present  secession 
movement  is  the  result  of  an  enormous  conspiracy 
formed  more  than  a  year  since,  formed  by  leaders  in 
the  Southern  Confederacy  more  than  twelve  months 
ago/'  But  this  was  no  time  to  discuss  pretexts  and 
causes.  "The  conspiracy  is  now  known.  Armies  have 
been  raised,  war  is  levied  to  accomplish  it.  There  are 
only  two  sides  to  the  question.  Every  man  must  be  for 
the  United  States  or  against  it.  There  can  be  no  neu 
trals  in  this  war;  only  patriots — or  traitors."1  It  was 
the  first  time  he  had  used  the  ugly  epithet. 

Hardly  had  he  summoned  the  people  of  Illinois  to 
do  battle,  when  again  he  touched  that  pathetic  note 
that  recurred  again  and  again  in  his  appeal  at  Spring 
field.  Was  it  the  memory  of  the  mother  of  his  boys 
that  moved  him  to  say,  "But  we  must  remember 

1  The  New  York  Tribune,  June  13th,  and  the  Philadelphia  Press, 
June  14th,  published  this  speech  in  full. 


THE  SUMMONS  487 

certain  restraints  on  our  action  even  in  time  of  war. 
We  are  a  Christian  people,  and  the  war  must  be  prose 
cuted  in  a  manner  recognized  by  Christian  nations. 
We  must  not  invade  Constitutional  rights.  The  inno 
cent  must  not  suffer,  nor  women  and  children  be  the 
victims. "  Before  him  were  some  who  felt  toward  the 
people  of  the  South  as  Greek  toward  barbarian.  But 
Douglas  foresaw  that  the  horrors  of  war  must  invade 
and  desolate  the  homes  of  those  whom  he  still  held 
dear.  There  is  no  more  lovable  and  admirable  side 
of  his  personality  than  this  tenderness  for  the  helpless 
and  innocent.  Had  he  but  lived  to  temper  justice  with 
mercy,  what  a  power  for  good  might  he  not  have  been 
in  the  days  of  reconstruction ! 

The  summons  had  gone  forth.  Already  doubts  and 
misgivings  had  given  way,  and  the  North  was  now 
practically  unanimous  in  its  determination  to  stifle 
rebellion.  There  was  a  common  belief  that  secession 
was  the  work  of  a  minority,  skillfully  led  by  designing 
politicians,  and  that  the  loyal  majority  would  rally 
with  the  North  to  defend  the  flag.  Young  men  who 
responded  jubilantly  to  the  call  to  arms  did  not  doubt 
that  the  struggle  would  be  brief.  Douglas  shared  the 
common  belief  in  the  conspiracy  theory  of  secession, 
but  he  indulged  no  illusion  as  to  the  nature  of  the  war, 
if  war  should  come.  Months  before  the  firing  upon 
Port  Sumter,  in  a  moment  of  depression,  he  had 
prophesied  that  if  the  cotton  States  should  succeed  in 
drawing  the  border  States  into  their  schemes  of  seces 
sion,  the  most  fearful  civil  war  the  world  had  ever  seen 
would  follow,  lasting  for  years.  "Virginia,"  said  he, 
pointing  toward  Arlington,  "over  yonder  across  the 
Potomac,  will  become  a  charnel-house.  .  .  .  Washington 


488  STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS 

will  become  a  city  of  hospitals,  the  churches  will  be 
used  for  the  sick  and  wounded.  This  house  'Minne 
sota  Block/  will  be  devoted  to  that  purpose  before  the 
end  of  the  war."1  He,  at  least,  did  not  mistake  the 
chivalry  of  the  South.  Not  for  an  instant  did  he  doubt 
the  capacity  of  the  Southern  people  to  suffer  and 
endure,  as  well  as  to  do  battle.  And  he  knew — Ah! 
how  well — the  self-sacrifice  and  devotion  of  Southern 
women. 

The  days  following  the  return  of  Douglas  to  Chicago 
were  filled  also  with  worries  and  anxieties  of  a  private 
nature.  The  financial  panic  of  1857  had  been  accom 
panied  by  a  depression  of  land  values,  which  caused 
Douglas  grave  concern  for  his  holdings  in  Chicago,  and 
no  little  immediate  distress.  Unable  and  unwilling  to 
sacrifice  his  investments,  he  had  mortgaged  nearly  all 
of  his  property  in  Cook  County,  including  the  valuable 
" Grove  Property"  in  South  Chicago.  Though  he  was 
always  lax  in  pecuniary  matters,  and,  with  his  buoyant 
generous  nature,  little  disposed  to  take  anxious  thought 
for  the  morrow,  these  heavy  financial  obligations  be 
gan  now  to  press  upon  him  with  grievous  weight.  The 
prolonged  strain  of  the  previous  twelve  months  had 
racked  even  his  constitution.  He  had  made  heavy 
drafts  on  his  bodily  health,  with  all  too  little  regard 
for  the  inevitable  compensation  which  Nature  de 
mands.  As  in  all  other  things,  he  had  been  prodigal 
with  Nature's  choicest  gift. 

Not  long  after  his  public  address  Douglas  fell  ill 
and  developed  symptoms  that  gave  his  physicians  the 
gravest  concern.  Weeks  of  illness  followed.  The  dis- 

1  Arnold,  Lincoln,  p.  193.  See  also  his  remarks  in  the  Senate,  Janu 
ary  3,  1861. 


THE  SUMMONS  489 

ease,  baffling  medical  skill,  ran  its  course.  Yet  never 
in  his  lucid  moments  did  Douglas  forget  the  ills  of  his 
country ;  and  even  when  delirium  clouded  his  mind,  he 
was  still  battling  for  the  Union.  "Telegraph  to  the 
President  and  let  the  column  move  on, ? '  he  cried,  wrest 
ling  with  his  wasting  fever.  In  his  last  hours  his  mind 
cleared.  Early  on  the  morning  of  June  3d,  he  seemed 
to  rally,  but  only  momentarily.  It  was  evident  to  those 
about  him  that  the  great  summons  had  come.  Tenderly 
his  devoted  wife  leaned  over  him  to  ask  if  he  had  any 
message  for  his  boys,  "  Bobbie "  and  "Stevie."  With 
great  effort,  but  clearly  and  emphatically,  he  replied, 
'  '  Tell  them  to  obey  the  laws  and  support  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States. ' '  Not  long  after,  he  grappled 
with  the  great  Foe,  and  the  soul  of  a  great  patriot 
passed  on. 

"I  was  ever  a  fighter,  so — one  fight  more, 

The  best  and  the  last! 
I  would  hate  that  death  bandaged  my  eyes,  and  forbore, 

And  bade  me  creep  past. 
No !    let  me  taste  the  whole  of  it,  fare  like  my  peers 

The  heroes  of  old, 
Bear  the  brunt,  in  a  minute  pay  glad  life's  arrears 

Of  pain,  darkness  and  cold." 

With  almost  royal  pomp,  the  earthly  remains  of 
Stephen  Arnold  Douglas  were  buried  beside  the  inland 
sea  that  washes  the  shores  of  the  home  of  his  adoption. 
It  is  a  fitting  resting  place.  The  tempestuous  waters 
of  the  great  lake  reflect  his  own  stormy  career.  Yet 
they  have  their  milder  moods.  There  are  hours  when 
sunlight  falls  aslant  the  subdued  surface  and  irradiates 
the  depths. 


INDEX 


Abolitionism,  debate  in  the  Senate 
on,  124-126. 

Abolitionists,  in  Illinois,  156,  158- 
160;  agitation  of,  194-195. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  on  Douglas, 
72,  76,  89,  98;  catechises  Dou 
glas,  111,  113. 

Albany  Eegency,  10. 

Anderson,  Robert,  dispatch  to  War 
Department,  442;  moves  garri 
son  to  Fort  Sumter,  451. 

Andrews,  Sherlock  J.,  11. 

Anti-Masonry,  in  New  York,  10. 

Anti-Nebraska  party.  See  Repub 
lican  party. 

* '  Appeal  of  the  Independent  Demo 
crats,  "  origin,  240;  assails  mo 
tives  of  Douglas,  241. 

Arnold,  Marl'  a,  grandmother  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  4. 

Arnold,  William,  ancestor  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  4. 

Ashmun,  George,  475,  476,  477. 

Atchison,  David  R,  pro-slavery 
leader  in  Missouri,  223;  favors 
Nebraska  bill  (1853),  225;  and 
repeal  of  Missouri  Compromise, 
225,  235;  and  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  256. 

Badger,  George  E.,  215. 

"  Barnburners, "    132. 

Bay  Islands,  Colony  of,  209,  213. 

Bell,  John,  presidential  candidate, 

425,  429,  440. 
Benjamin,   Judah  P.,  quoted,  402, 

453. 


Benton,  Thomas  H.,  44,  117,  223. 

Berrien,  John  M.,  185. 

Bigler,  William,  333,  335,  417,  446. 

Bissell,  William  H.,  305. 

Black,  Jeremiah  S.,  controversy 
with  Douglas,  409-410. 

"Black  Republicans,"  origin  of 
epithet,  275;  arraigned  by 
Douglas,  296,  297,  304,  374-375. 

"Blue  Lodges "  of  Missouri,  283, 
286. 

Boyd,  Linn,  182. 

Brandon,  birthplace  of  Douglas, 
5,  9,  69. 

Brandon  Academy,  7,  9. 

Breekinridge,  John  C.,  382;  presi 
dential  candidate  (1860),  427, 
428,  435,  440-441. 

Breese,  Sidney,  judge  of  Circuit 
Court,  52;  elected  Senator,  62; 
and  Federal  patronage,  118-119; 
director  of  Great  Western  Rail 
road  Company,  168-170;  retire 
ment,  158,  171. 

Bright,  Jesse  D.,  119,  417. 

Broderick,  David  C.,  and  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution,  335;  and  Eng 
lish  bill,  347;  killed,  411. 

Brooks,  S.  S.,  editor  of  Jackson 
ville  News,  19,  20,  25,  40. 

Brooks,  Preston,  assaults  Sumner, 
298. 

Brown,  Albert  G.,  247,  340,  341, 
397-398,  402. 

Brown,  John,  Pottawatomie  mas 
sacre,  299 ;  Harper 's  Ferry  raid, 
411,  412. 


490 


INDEX 


491 


Brown,  Milton,  of  Tennessee,  89. 

Browning,  O.  H.,  66,  67,  115. 

Buchanan,  James,  candidacy 
(1852),  206;  nominated  for 
presidency  (1856),  276-278;  in 
dorses  Kansas  -  Nebraska  bill, 
279  n.;  elected,  306;  appoints 
Walker  governor  of  Kansas, 
324-325 ;  interview  with  Douglas, 
328;  message,  328-329;  advises 
admission  of  Kansas,  338 ; 
orders  reinforcement  of  Sumter, 
452. 

Bulwer,  Sir  Henry,  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  209. 

Butler,  Andrew  P.,  119,  137,  216. 

Calhoun,  John,  president  of  Le- 
compton  Convention,  327. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  120;  on  Aboli 
tionism,  124;  and  Douglas,  125; 
radical  Southern  leader,  127, 
138;  on  the  Constitution,  140. 

California,  coveted  by  Polk,  109; 
Clayton  Compromise,  130 ;  Polk 's 
programme,  133;  statehood  bill, 
134;  controversy  in  Senate,  135- 
142;  Clay's  resolutions,  176; 
new  statehood  bill,  181-184;  the 
Omnibus,  184-186 ;  admitted,  187. 

Canandaigua  Academy,  9,  10. 

Carlin,  Thomas,  42,  45,  51. 

Cass,  Lewis,  defends  Oregon 
policy,  99 ;  introduces  Ten  Regi- 
ments  bill,  120;  Nicholson  let 
ter,  128 ;  presidential  candidate, 
132;  candidacy  (1852),  206; 
and  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  209 ; 
and  Monroe  Doctrine,  211 ;  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  245-246; 
candidacy  (1856),  277;  on  Sum- 
ner,  296. 


Charleston  Convention,  delegates 
to,  413,  416;  organization  of, 
417;  Committee  on  Eesolutions, 
418;  speech  of  Payne,  418-419; 
speech  of  Yancey,  419;  speech 
of  Pugh,  419-420;  minority  re 
port  adopted,  420;  secession, 
420;  balloting,  420-421;  ad 
journment,  421. 

Chase,  Salmon  P.,  joint  author  of 
the  "Appeal/'  240-241;  and 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  247;  249; 
assailed  by  Douglas,  251-252. 

Chicago,  residence  of  Douglas, 
309 ;  investments  of  Douglas  in, 
310. 

Chicago  Convention,  425. 

Chicago  Press  and  Tribune,  on 
Douglas,  349;  declares  Spring 
field  resolutions  a  forgery,  370. 

Chicago  Times,  Douglas  organ  in 
Northwest,  305,  328. 

Chicago  University,  gift  of  Doug 
las  to,  310. 

Clark  Resolution   (1861),  452. 

Clay,  Henry,  compromise  pro 
gramme,  176;  and  Douglas,  183- 
184;  and  Utah  bill,  186-187;  en 
passage  of  compromise  measures, 
189. 

Clayton-Bulwer   treaty,    209-214. 

Clayton,  John  M.,  119;  on  Oregon, 
130;  entente  with  Bulwer,  209- 
210;  assailed  by  Cass  and  Doug 
las,  211-212;  replies  to  critics, 
213-214 ;  on  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  247-248. 

Clingman,  Thomas  L.,  425,  444, 
466. 

Colfax,  Sehuyler,  348. 

Collamer,  Jacob,  289,  338,  446- 
447. 


492 


INDEX 


Colorado  bill,  456;  substitute  of 
Douglas  for,  457,  459-460;  slav 
ery  in,  456,  458-459. 

Committee  on  Territories,  Douglas 
as  chairman,  in  Fouse,  99-100; 
in  Senate,  119-120;  Douglas 
deposed,  395. 

Compromise  of  1850,  Clay's  reso 
lutions,  176-177;  speech  of 
Douglas,  177-181;  compromise 
bills,  181-182;  committee  of 
thirteen,  183-184;  debate  in 
Senate,  184-187;  passage,  187; 
finality  resolution,  194-195;  197; 
principle  involved,  189-190. 

Constitutional  Union  party,  possi 
bility  of,  349;  nominates  Bell, 
425;  prospects,  428. 

Cook,  Isaac,  418. 

Crittenden  Compromise,  446-447 ; 
indorsed  by  Douglas,  447-448; 
proposed  referendum  on,  449 ; 
opposed  by  Eepublicans,  452; 
defeated,  463. 

Crittenden,  John  J.,  favors  Doug 
las's  re-election,  382;  compro 
mise  resolutions,  446-447;  ef 
forts  for  peace,  448,  452,  463. 

Cuba,  acquisition  of,  favored  by 
Douglas,  199,  208,  396-397. 

Cutts,  J.  Madison,  father  of 
Adele  Cutts  Douglas,  255,  316. 

Danites,  Mormon  order,  90;  Bu 
chanan  Democrats,  382. 

Davis,  Jefferson,  and  Douglas, 
189;  and  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
237-238;  and  Freeport  doctrine, 
399ff.,  413;  resolutions  of,  415- 
416;  assails  Douglas,  423;  on 
candidates  and  platforms,  424; 
on  Southern  grievances,  444;  on 


committee  of  thirteen,  446;  per 
mits  attack  on  Sumter,  474. 

Davis,  John,  119. 

Democratic  party,  Baltimore  con 
vention  (1844),  79;  campaign, 
80-81;  platform,  84,  98-99,  104- 
105 ;  convention  of  1848, 131-132 ; 
Cass  and  Barnburners,  132-133; 
convention  of  1852,  204-206; 
campaign,  207;  Cincinnati  con 
vention,  276-278;  platform  and 
candidate,  278-279;  "Bleeding 
Kansas,"  299ff. ;  election  of 
1856,  305-306;  Charleston  con 
vention,  413ff. ;  Davis  resolu 
tions,  415-416;  minority  report, 
418-420;  secession,  420;  ad 
journment,  421 ;  Baltimore  con 
vention,  426-428;  Bolters'  con 
vention,  428 ;  campaign  of  1860, 
429-441. 

Democratic  Review,  and  candidacy 
of  Douglas  (1852),  200-202. 

Dickinson,  Daniel  S.,  128,  382. 

Divorce,  Douglas  on,  33-34. 

Dixon,  Archibald,  and  repeal  of 
Missouri  Compromise,  235-236 ; 
and  Nebraska  bill,  239. 

Dodge,  Augustus  C.,  Nebraska 
bill  of,  228;  favors  two  Terri 
tories,  239. 

Doolittle,  James  E.,  446. 

Douglas,  Adele  Cutts,  wife  of 
Stephen  A.,  316-317;  leader  in 
Washington  society,  336-337;  in 
campaign  of  1858,  383;  in  cam 
paign  of  1860,  438;  calls  upon 
Mrs.  Lincoln,  462;  476,  489. 

Douglas,  Martha  (nee  Martha 
Denny  Martin),  daughter  of 
Kobert  Martin,  145;  marries 


INDEX 


493 


Stephen  A.  Douglas,  147;  inher 
its  father's  estate,  148;  death, 
208. 

DOUGLAS,  STEPHEN  ARNOLD. 

Early  years:  ancestry  and  birth, 
4-5;  boyhood,  5-7;  apprentice, 
8-9;  in  Brandon  Academy,  9; 
removal  to  New  York,  9;  in 
Canandaigua  Academy,  9-10 ; 
studies  law,  11;  goes  west,  11- 
13;  reaches  Jacksonville,  Illi 
nois,  14;  teaches  school,  16-17; 
admitted  to  bar,  17. 

Beginnings  in  Politics:  first  pub 
lic  speech,  20-21;  elected  State's 
attorney,  22;  first  indictments, 
23-24;  defends  Caucus  system, 
26-27;  candidate  for  Legisla 
ture,  27-29;  in  Legislature,  29- 
34;  Eegister  of  Land  Offi.ce, 
35-36;  nominated  for  Congress 
(1837),  40-41;  campaign  against 
Stuart,  42-44 ;  resumes  law 
practice,  45 ;  chairman  of  State 
committee,  47-50;  Secretary  of 
State,  53;  appointed  judge,  56- 
57;  visits  Mormons,  58;  on  the 
Bench,  63-64;  candidate  for 
Senate,  62;  nominated  for  Con 
gress,  65;  elected,  67. 

Congressman :  defends  Jackson, 
69-72;  reports  on  Election  Law, 
73-76;  plea  for  Internal  Im 
provements,  77-78;  on  Polk,  80; 
meets  Jackson,  81-82 ;  re-elected 
(1844),  83;  advocates  annexation 
of  Texas,  85-90;  and  the  Mor 
mons,  91-92 ;  proposes  Oregon 
bills,  95;  urges  "re-occupation 
of  Oregon,"  96-98;  supports 
Folk's  policy,  99;  appointed 
chairman  of  Committee  on  Ter 


ritories,  99;  offers  bill  on  Ore 
gon,  101 ;  opposes  compromise 
and  arbitration,  101-103 ;  re- 
nominated  for  Congress,  103; 
and  the  President,  104-106;  pro 
poses  organization  of  Oregon, 
106;  advocates  admission  of 
Florida,  107;  defends  Mexican 
War,  109-110;  claims  Fio  Grande 
as  boundary,  111-li  I;  seeks 
military  appointment,  114-115; 
re-elected  (1846),  115;  defends 
Folk's  war  policy,  116-117; 
elected  Senator  (1847),  117-118. 
United  States  Senator:  appointed 
chairman  of  Committee  on  Ter 
ritories,  119 ;  on  Ten  Kegiments 
bill,  120-122;  on  Abolitionism, 
124-126;  second  attempt  to 
organize  Oregon,  129;  favors 
Clayton  Compromise,  130 ;  pro 
poses  extension  of  Missouri 
Compromise  line,  131 ;  offers 
California  statehood  bills,  134- 
137;  advocates  "squatter  sov 
ereignty,  ' '  138-139 ;  presents 
resolutions  of  Illinois  Legisla 
ture,  140;  marriage,  147;  denies 
ownership  of  slaves,  149-150; 
removes  to  Chicago,  169;  ad 
vocates  central  railroad,  169- 
172;  speech  on  California 
(1850),  177ff. ;  concerts  terri 
torial  bills  with  Toombs  and 
Stephens,  181-182;  vote  on  com 
promise  measures,  187-188;  de 
fends  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  191- 
194 ;  presidential  aspirations, 
195-196 ;  on  intervention  in 
Hungary,  199-200 ;  candidacy 
(1852),  200-206;  in  campaign 
of  1852,  207;  re-elected  Senator, 


494 


INDEX 


208w.;  death  of  his  wife,  208; 
on  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  211- 
214;  hostility  to  Great  Britain, 
215-216 ;  travels  abroad,  217-219 ; 
proposes  military  colonization 
of  Nebraska,  221;  urges  organ 
ization  of  Nebraska,  224-225; 
report  of  January  4,  1854, 
229ff. ;  offers  substitute  for 
Dodge  bill,  231-232;  interprets 
new  bill,  233-234;  and  Dixon, 
235-236;  drafts  Kansas-Ne 
braska  bill,  237;  secures  sup 
port  of  administration,  237-238; 
reports  bill,  239;  arraigned  by 
Independent  Democrats,  241 ; 
replies  to  "Appeal,"  241-243; 
proposes  amendments  to  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  246,  249; 
closes  debate,  251-254;  answers 
protests,  256-257;  faces  mob  in 
Chicago,  258-259 ;  denounces 
Know-Nothings,  263;  in  cam 
paign  of  1854,  264  ff.;  debate 
with  Lincoln,  265-266;  and 
Shields,  267,  268;  on  the  elec 
tions,  269-272;  and  Wade,  272- 
273 ;  on  ' '  Black  Kepublicanism, ' ' 
275-276;  candidacy  at  Cincin 
nati,  276-278;  supports  Buchan 
an,  278;  reports  on  Kansas, 
289-293;  proposes  admission  of 
Kansas,  293;  replies  to  Trum- 
bull,  294;  and  Sumner,  296-298; 
reports  Toombs  bill,  300-301; 
omits  referendum  provision,  302 ; 
subsequent  defense,  303-304;  in 
campaign  of  1856,  304-306;  sec 
ond  marriage,  316;  on  Dred 
Scott  decision,  321-323;  inter 
view  with  Walker,  325;  and 
Buchanan,  327-328 ;  denounces 


Lecompton  constitution,  329-332 ; 
report  on  Kansas.  338-340; 
speech  on  Lecomptonism,  341- 
343;  rejects  English  bill,  345- 
347;  Republican  ally,  348;  re 
election  opposed,  349-350;  in 
Chicago,  352-354;  opening 
speech  of  campaign,  354-357; 
speech  at  Bloomington,  35b- 
360;  speech  at  Springfield,  360- 
361;  agrees  to  joint  debate, 
362;  first  debate  at  Ottawa, 
363-370;  Springfield  resolutions, 
370;  Freeport  debate,  370-375; 
debate  at  Jonesboro,  375-378 ; 
debate  at  Charleston,  378-381; 
friends  and  foes,  381-382;  re 
sources,  382-383;  debate  at 
Galesburg,  383-386;  debate  at 
Quincy,  386-388;  debate  at  Al 
ton,  388-390;  the  election,  391- 
392;  journey  to  South  and  Cuba, 
393-395;  deposed  from  chair 
manship  of  Committee  on  Terri 
tories,  395;  supports  Slidell 
project,  396;  debate  of  Febru 
ary  23,  1859,  397  ff.;  opposes 
slave-trade,  403-404;  Harper's 
Magazine  article,  405-409;  con 
troversy  with  Black,  409-410; 
in  Ohio,  410-411;  presidential 
candidate  of  Northwest,  413, 
416;  and  the  South,  414;  and 
Eepublicans,  414-415;  candidate 
at  Charleston,  416  ff.;  defends 
his  orthodoxy,  422-424;  nom 
inated  at  Baltimore,  427;  letter 
of  acceptance,  428;  personal 
canvass,  429-439;  on  election  of 
Lincoln,  439  ff. ;  and  Crittenden 
compromise,  446-448;  speech  of 
January  3,  1861,  449  ff.;  ef- 


INDEX 


495 


forts  for  peace,  448,  452,  453; 
offers  fugitive  slave  bill,  454; 
and  Mason,  454-455;  and  Wig- 
fall,  455-456;  fears  the  Blairs, 
461;  opinion  of  President-elect, 
461;  and  Lincoln,  462-463;  at 
inauguration,  464;  and  the  in 
augural,  466-468;  on  reinforce 
ment  of  Sumter,  468-469;  in 
the  confidence  of  Lincoln,  469- 
470;  on  policy  of  administra 
tion,  471-473;  faces  war,  474; 
closeted  with  Lincoln,  April  14, 
475-477;  press  dispatch,  477; 
first  War  Democrat,  478;  mis 
sion  in  Northwest,  478-480; 
speech  at  Bellaire,  480-482; 
speech  at  Columbus,  482-483; 
speech  at  Springfield,  483-485; 
speech  at  Chicago,  485-487;  pre 
monitions  of  war,  487-488;  last 
illness  and  death,  488-489. 

Personal  traits:  Physical  appear 
ance,  22-23,  69,  294-295,  364- 
365;  limitations  upon  his  cul 
ture,  36-37,  119-120,  215-217, 
270-272;  his  indebtedness  to 
Southern  associations,  147-148, 
317-318;  advocate  rather  than 
judge,  70-71,  121-122,  177-181, 
270-272,  321;  liberal  in  religion, 
263,  317;  retentive  memory,  319- 
320;  his  impulsiveness,  320;  his 
generosity  of  temper,  320;  his 
loyalty  to  friends,  267-268,  318- 
319;  his  prodigality  in  pecun 
iary  matters,  309-310;  his  do 
mestic  relations,  317;  the  man 
and  the  politician,  270-272. 

As  a  party  leader:  early  interest 
in  politics,  8,  10;  schooling  in 
politics,  18-19;  his  talent  as 


organizer,  25  ff.;  39  ff.,  47-50; 
secret  of  his  popularity,  318- 
319;  his  partisanship,  324. 

As  a  statesman:  readiness  in  de 
bate,  320;  early  manner  of 
speaking,  70ff. ;  later  manner, 
251-252,  294-297;  insight  into 
value  of  the  public  domain,  36, 
311-312;  belief  in  territorial  ex 
pansion,  100,  107-108;  his  Chau 
vinism,  87-88,  97-98,  101-103, 
199,  211-214;  his  statecraft,  100, 
107-108,  174-181,  270-272,  314- 
315;  abhorrence  of  civil  war, 
449-451,  484-487;  love  of  the 
Union,  324,  436-437,  481,  484, 
489. 

Douglass,  Benajah,  grandfather  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  4-5. 

Douglass,  Sally  Fisk,  mother  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  5. 

Douglass,  Stephen  A.,  father  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  5. 

Douglass,  William,  ancestor  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  4. 

Dred  Scott  decision,  Douglas  on, 
321-323,  356,  359-360,  372-373, 
377;  Lincoln  on,  353,  357,  361, 
376-377. 

Duncan,  Joseph,  50,  60. 

Election  Law  of  1842,  73;  Doug 
las  on,  74-75. 

Elections,  State  and  local,  22,  29, 
50,  61,  158-159,  267;  congres 
sional,  44,  67,  73-76,  83,  115- 

116,  207,    267;    senatorial,    62, 

117,  207,   208   n.,  268-269,   391- 
392;    presidential,  50,   306,   440- 
441. 

English    bill,    reported,    343;    op- 


496 


INDEX 


posed     by     Douglas,     345-346; 
passed,  347. 
Everett,  Edward,  256,  429. 

Fessenden,   William  P.,  473-474. 

Field,  Alexander  P.,  52. 

Fillmore,  Millard,  280. 

Fitch,  Graham  N.,  335,  336. 

Fitzpatrick,  Benjamin,  428. 

Foote,  Henry  S.,  on  Abolitionism, 
124-125;  and  Douglas,  126; 
offers  finality  resolution,  197. 

Ford,  Thomas,  61,  90,   154. 

Forney,  John  W.,  305,  437;  on 
Douglas  and  Lincoln,  480. 

Fort  Pickens,  question  of  evacuat 
ing,  468  ff. 

Fort  Sumter,  occupation  advised, 
442;  occupied,  451;  abortive 
attempt  to  reinforce,  452;  ques 
tion  of  evacuating,  468  ff. ;  at 
tack  upon,  474;  capitulation  of, 
475. 

Francis,  Simeon,  46. 

Fremont,  John  C.,  280. 

Freeport  doctrine,  foreshadowed, 
322,  359-360;  stated,  372-373; 
analyzed  by  Lincoln,  376-377; 
effect  upon  South,  381-382;  de 
nounced  in  Senate,  397  ff. ;  de 
fended  in  Harper's  Magazine, 
405-409. 

Free-Soil  party,  convention  of, 
132;  holds  balance  of  power  in 
House,  133;  in  Illinois,  158-160. 

Fugitive  Slave  Law,  passed,  187; 
not  voted  upon  by  Douglas,  188 ; 
defended  by  Douglas,  191-194; 
violations  of,  194-195;  repeal 
proposed,  195;  attitude  of 
South,  195;  Lincoln  on,  371; 
evasions  of,  445-446;  supple 


mentary  law  proposed  by  Doug 
las,  454. 

Fusion  party,  in  Illinois,  264ff. 
See  Republican  party. 

Galena  alien  case,  47,  48,  54. 

Granger,  Gehazi,  9. 

Great  Britain,  animus  of  Douglas 
toward,  concerning  Oregon,  88, 
93-94,  97,  101,  102;  concerning 
Central  America,  211-213,  215- 
216;  217. 

Great  Western  Railroad  Company, 
168. 

Greeley,  Horace,  and  Douglas,  320, 
348;  favors  re-election  of  Doug 
las,  349. 

Green,  James  S.,  333,  335,  338, 
401,  457. 

Greenhow's  History  of  the  North 
west  Coast  of  North  America, 
94,  95. 

Grimes,  James  W.,  446. 

Guthrie,  James,  420,  427. 

Hale,  John  P.,  124,  138,  186. 

Hall,  Willard  P.,  223-224. 

Hannegan,   Edward   A.,    103-104. 

Hardin,  John  J.,  21-22,  27,  91,  92. 

Harper 's  Magazine,  essay  by  Doug 
las  in,  405  ff. 

Harris,  Thomas  L.,  265. 

Helper's  Impending  Crisis,  412- 
413. 

Herndon,  William  H.,  Lincoln's 
law  partner,  351. 

Hise,  Elijah,  drafts  treaty,  210. 

Hoge,  Joseph  B.,  118. 

Homestead  bill  of  Douglas,  311. 

Honduras  and  its  dependencies, 
claimed  by  Great  Britain,  209- 
211. 


INDEX 


497 


Howe,  Henry,  9, 

Hunter,  E.  M.  T.,  420,  446. 

Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  lands 
granted  to,  31;  Douglas  and 
construction  of,  32-33;  probable 
influence  upon  settlement,  154. 

Illinois  Central  Eailroad,  incep 
tion  of,  168;  project  taken  up 
by  Douglas,  169-170;  bill  for 
land  grant  to,  170;  legislative 
history  of,  171-173;  larger  as 
pects  of,  174  ff.;  in  the  cam 
paign  of  1858,  382. 

Illinois  Republican,  attack  upon 
oihce  of,  37-38. 

Illinois  State  Register,  on  Douglas, 
46,  81-82;  and  Springfield 
clique,  61-62;  editorial  by 
Douglas  in,  149-150;  forecast 
of  Nebraska  legislation,  228. 

Indian  claims,  in  Nebraska,  220, 
222-225,  238-239. 

Internal  Improvements,  agitation 
in  Illinois,  29-30;  Douglas  on, 
30-31. 

Iverson,  Alfred,  443,  444. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  16,  20;  defended 
by  Douglas,  69-72,  78;  and 
Douglas,  81-82. 

Jacksonville,  Illinois,  early  home 
of  Douglas,  14ff. 

Johnson,  Hadley  D.,  226,  238-239. 

Johnson,   Herschel  V.,   428. 

Johnson,   Thomas,   225,   226. 

Judiciary  bill,  in  Illinois  legisla 
ture,  54-56,  59. 

Kansas,  first  settlers  in,  283;  col 
onists  of  Emigrant  Aid  Company 
in,  283;  defect  in  organic  act 
of,  284;  first  elections  in,  284ff.; 


invasion  by  Missourians,  286; 
first  territorial  legislature,  286- 
287;  Topeka  convention  and 
free  State  legislature,  288;  sack 
of  Lawrence,  299;  raid  of  John 
Brown,  299;  convention  elected, 
325;  free  State  party  in  con 
trol  of  legislature,  326;  Lecomp- 
ton  convention,  326-327;  vote  on 
constitution,  337-338;  land  ordi 
nance  rejected,  347. 

Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  origin  of, 
236-239;  in  Democratic  caucus, 
243  -  245 ;  wording  criticised, 
245;  amended,  246,  248,  249, 
250;  passes  to  third  reading  in 
Senate,  250;  course  in  House, 
254-255;  defeat  of  Clayton 
amendment,  255-256 ;  passes 
Senate,  256;  becomes  law,  256; 
arouses  North,  256  ff.;  popular 
sovereignty  in,  281-282. 

King,  William  F.,  172. 

Knowlton,   Caleb,  9. 

Know-Nothing  party,  origin,  262; 
denounced  by  Douglas,  263;  in 
Northwest,  263-264 ;  nominates 
Fillmore,  280. 

Kossuth,  Louis,  reception  of, 
199ff. 

Lamborn,  Josiah,  16. 

Lane,  James  H.,  in  Kansas,  287- 
288. 

Lane,  Joseph,  205,  428. 

Lecompton  constitution,  origin, 
326-327;  denounced  by  Douglas, 
329  ff.;  vote  upon,  337;  sub 
mitted  to  Congress,  338;  bill  to 
admit  Kansas  with,  343. 

Lee,  Eobert  E.,  482. 

Letcher,  John,  480. 


498 


INDEX 


Liberty  party,  116,  158. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  in  Illinois  leg 
islature,  32n.-,  leader  of  "the 
Long  Nine,"  34;  debate  with 
Douglas  (1839),  46;  on  Doug 
las,  46;  elected  to  Congress,  116; 
debate  with  Douglas  (1854), 
265-266;  "the  Peoria  Truce/' 
266  n.;  candidate  for  Senate, 
268-269 ;  »Eepublican  nominee 
for  Senate  (1858),  350;  early 
career,  351;  personal  traits, 
351-352 ;  addresses  Eepublican 
convention,  352-353 ;  hears 
Douglas  in  Chicago,  354;  re 
plies  to  Douglas,  357-358; 
speech  at  Springfield,  361;  pro 
poses  joint  debates,  362;  per 
sonal  appearance,  364-365;  de 
bate  at  Ottawa,  365-370;  Free- 
port  debate,  370-375;  debate  at 
Jonesboro,  375-378;  debate  at 
Charleston,  378-381;  resources, 
382;  debate  at  Galesburg,  383- 
386;  debate  at  Quincy,  386-388; 
debate  at  Alton,  388-390;  de 
feated,  392;  in  Ohio,  410-411; 
presidential  candidate,  425 ; 
elected,  440-441;  enters  Wash 
ington,  461 ;  and  advisers,  461, 
462;  confers  with  Douglas, 
463-464 ;  inauguration,  464 ; 
address,  464-466;  defended  by 
Douglas,  466  ff. ;  consults 
Douglas,  469-470;  not  generally 
known,  471;  decides  to  provi 
sion  Sumter,  474;  calls  for 
troops,  475;  confers  with  Doug 
las,  476-477,  478;  last  interview 
with  Douglas,  479. 

Logan,   Stephen  T.,  23. 

"Lord  Coke's  Assembly,"  53,  55. 


McClernand,  John  A.,  51,  55,  119X 
182. 

McConnell,  Murray,  14,  48. 

McEoberts,  Samuel,  42. 

Marble,  Mary  Ann,  wife  of  Wil 
liam  Douglass,  4. 

Marble,  Thomas,  ancestor  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  4. 

Marshall,  Edward   C.,  203. 

Martin,  Colonel  Eobert,  145 ; 
plantations  of,  146;  will  of, 
148-149. 

Mason,  James  M.,  454,  455,  469. 

Matteson,  Joel  A.,  268-269;  letter 
of  Douglas  to,  313-314. 

May,  William  L.,  40. 

Mexico,  Slidell's  mission  to,  109; 
dictatorship  in,  111;  treaty  with 
Texas,  111-112;  territory  lost 
by,  116,  117;  treaty  of  1848,  123. 

Mexican  War,  announced  by  Polk, 
105,  109;  defended  by  Douglas, 
109-112,  116-117;  appointments 
in,  114,  117;  terminated,  123. 

Minnesota  bill,  to  organize  terri 
torial  government,  142;  to  ad 
mit  State,  340. 

Minnesota  Block,  Douglas  resi 
dence  in  Washington,  337,  488. 

Missouri  Compromise,  and  annex 
ation  of  Texas,  89-90;  and 
organization  of  Oregon,  130; 
and  organization  of  Mexican 
cession,  131,  133;  and  organiza 
tion  of  Nebraska,  221,  230-231, 
232-233,  235;  repeal  agitated 
by  Atchison,  235-236;  repealed, 
237  ff. ;  declared  unconstitu 
tional,  321-322. 

Monroe  doctrine,  debated  in  Sen 
ate,  211-214. 

Moore,   John,    60. 


INDEX 


499 


Mormons,  settle  in  Illinois,  57-58; 
politics  of,  58-61;  disorders  in 
Hancock  County,  90-91;  ad 
vised  to  emigrate,  91;  removal, 
92;  in  Utah,  220. 

Morris,  Edward  J.,  96. 

Mosquito  protectorate,  209,  210- 
211. 

Nashville  convention  (1844),  81. 

National  Era,  occasions  contro 
versy  in  Senate,  124. 

Native  American  party,  262.  See 
Know-Nothing  party. 

Nauvoo,  settled  by  Mormons,  57; 
charter  repealed,  90;  evacuated, 
92. 

Nauvoo  Legion,  58. 

Nebraska,  first  bill  to  organize, 
95;  second  bill,  142;  bill  for 
military  colonization  of,  221; 
third  bill,  223-224;  Dodge  bill, 
228;  report  of  Douglas  on,  239 
ff.;  new  bill  reported,  231;  bill 
printed,  232;  manuscript  of, 
233.  See  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 

Negro  equality,  Douglas  on,  275- 
276,  356-357,  384;  Lincoln  on, 
358,  361,  368,  379,  385. 

New  England  Emigrant  Aid  Com 
pany,  283. 

New  Mexico,  slavery  in,  127  ff., 
Clayton  compromise,  130;  con 
troversy  in  Congress,  130-131; 
Folk's  policy,  133;  Douglas's 
statehood  bills,  134-137;  Taylor's 
policy,  166;  Clay's  resolutions, 
176;  territorial  bill  for,  181-183; 
in  the  Omnibus,  184-186;  or 
ganized,  187. 

New   York    Times,    supports    Lin 


coln  (1858),  382;  on  Douglas, 
411,  429,  436,  470. 

New  York  Tribune,  on  Douglas, 
332,  348,  403. 

Niles'  Register,  cited  as  a  source, 
112. 

Non-intervention,  principle  of, 
Cass  on,  128;  in  Clayton  com 
promise,  130;  Douglas  on,  138- 
139;  in  compromise  of  1850, 
181-187,  189-190;  in  Kansas- 
Nebraska  legislation,  230-231, 
236,  243-249,  289-292,  397-402. 

"Old  Fogyism,"  200. 

Oregon,  emigration  from  Illinois 
to,  93;  "re-occupation"  of, 
94 ;  international  status  of, 
94-95;  Douglas  on,  96-98; 
Folk's  policy  toward,  98-99; 
bill  to  protect  settlers  in,  101; 
and  treaty  with  Great  Britain, 
103,  106;  bills  to  organize,  106, 
108,  129;  Clayton  compromise, 
130;  organized,  131. 

Pacific  Eailroad,  and  organization 
of  Nebraska,  222-224,  238-239. 

Parker,   Nahum,    8. 

Parker,  Theodore,  on  Douglas,  393. 

Party  organizations,  beginnings 
of,  in  Illinois,  25-27,  38-42,  49- 
50;  efficiency  of,  65-66,  79,  103; 
sectional  influence  upon,  158- 
160;  institutional  character  of, 
157-158,  260-262. 

Payne,  Henry  B.,  418-419. 

Peace  Convention,  453;  resolution 
,  of,  463. 

Peck,  Ebenezer,  26,  56. 

Personal  Liberty  Acts,  445,  454. 

Pierce,  Franklin,  presidential  can 
didacy,  204-205;  approves  Kan- 


500 


INDEX 


sas-Nebraska  bill,  237-238 ; 
signs  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  256 ; 
opinion  on  slavery  extension, 
256w.;  candidacy  at  Cincinnati, 
276-277. 

Political  parties,  and  annexation 
of  Texas,  84 ;  and  Mexican  War, 
109;  and  slavery  in  Territories, 
127-129;  and  election  of  1848, 
132-133;  in  Illinois,  157-158; 
and  Free-Soilers,  158  ff.;  and 
compromise  of  1850,  195;  na 
tionalizing  influence  of,  260-262 ; 
decline  of  Whigs,  262;  rise  of 
Know-Nothings,  262;  and  Ne 
braska  Act,  264ff.;  rise  of  Ee- 
publican  party,  273-274;  and 
"Bleeding  Kansas,"  294,  299- 
302,  304-306;  and  Lecompton- 
ism,  332  ff. ;  possible  re-align 
ment  of,  348-349;  and  Lincoln- 
Douglas  contest,  349-350,  381- 
382,  393;  and  Freeport  doctrine, 
397-402,  413-414;  and  issues  of 
1860,  415  ff.;  and  election  of 
1860,  440-441. 

Polk,  James  K.,  presidential  can 
didacy,  70;  indorsed  by  Doug 
las,  80;  inaugural  of,  98;  on 
Oregon,  99;  negotiates  with 
Great  Britain,  103-104;  war 
message  of,  105;  and  Douglas, 
105-106 ;  announces  Oregon 
treaty,  106;  covets  California, 
109 ;  and  appointments,  114,  118- 
119;  urges  indemnity,  127;  and 
slavery  in  Territories,  131;  pro 
poses  territorial  governments, 
133 ;  proposes  statehood  bills,  135. 

Popular  sovereignty,  doctrine  an 
ticipated,  89;  phrase  coined, 
253;  in  Kansas-Nebraska  Act, 


281-282;  tested  in  Kansas,  283 
ff . ;  and  Dred  Scott  decision,  322  ; 
and  Lecompton  constitution,  326- 
327;  defended  by  Douglas,  329- 
332,  338-340,  342-343;  indorsed 
by  Seward,  348;  debated  by 
Lincoln  and  Douglas,  355,  357, 
359-360,  372-373,  376-377;  de 
nounced  by  South,  397  ff.;  de 
fended  in  Harper's  Magazine, 
405-409;  ridiculed  by  Black, 
409-410;  operates  against  slav 
ery,  410-411,  429;  Douglas 
urges  further  concessions  to, 
457,  459-460. 

Powell,  Lazarus  W.,  446. 

Public  lands,  granted  to  Illinois 
for  canal,  31;  Douglas  and  ad 
ministration  of,  35-36;  squat 
ters  and  land  leagues,  163-164; 
granted  to  Illinois  Central,  170 
ff.;  granted  to  Indians,  220; 
and  proposed  military  colonies, 
221;  and  proposed  Pacific  rail 
road,  222-224;  in  Kansas,  283- 
285;  Douglas  and  proper  dis 
tribution  of,  311-313. 

Pugh,  George  E.,  and  Lecompton 
constitution,  335;  and  English 
bill,  347;  413;  speech  in  Charles 
ton  convention,  419-420;  and 
Douglas,  422,  424. 

Ealston,  J.  H.,  58. 

Raymond,  Henry  J.,  editor  of  New 
York  Times,  436. 

Beapportionment  Act  of  1843,  64, 
65. 

Eeeder,  A.  H.,  governor  of  Kan 
sas,  284;  and  elections,  285, 
286;  joins  free  State  party,  287; 
chosen  senator  at  Topeka,  288. 


INDEX 


501 


Eeid,  David  S.,  145,  146. 

Eepublican  party,  rise  of,  in  Illi 
nois,  264  ff.;  elections  of  1854, 
269 ;  origin  of  name,  273 ;  com 
position  of,  273-274;  Philadel 
phia  convention,  279-280 ;  and 
"Bleeding  Kansas, "  304-305; 
opposes  Lecomptonism,  334; 
Chicago  convention,  421 ;  nom 
inates  Lincoln,  425;  elections  of 
1860,  437,  440-441. 

Eesolution  of  Illinois  Legislature, 
presented  in  Senate,  139-140 ; 
origin,  159-160;  controls  Doug 
las  (1850),  184. 

Eice,  Henry  M.,  446. 

Eichardson,  William  A.,  on  House 
Committee  on  Territories,  182; 
steers  Kansas  -  Nebraska  bill 
through  House,  254-255;  in  Cin 
cinnati  convention,  277;  candi 
date  for  governor,  305 ;  in 
Charleston  convention,  416ff. ;  in 
Baltimore  convention,  427;  fore 
casts  election,  429. 

Eichmond,  Dean,  426. 

Eiver  and  harbor  improvements, 
Douglas  on,  77-78,  313-314. 
See  also  Internal  Improvements. 

Eobinson,  Charles,  leader  of  free 
State  party  in  Kansas,  287,  288. 

Eoman  Church,  Adele  Cutts  an  ad 
herent  of,  317;  attitude  of 
Douglas  toward,  317. 

Sangamo  Journal,  on  Caucus  sys 
tem,  28 ;  on  Douglas,  41. 

Santa  Anna,  treaty  with  Texas, 
111,  112. 

Scott,  Winfield,  482. 

Secession,  apprehended,  442 ;  of 
South  Carolina,  447;  of  Cotton 


States,  452;   and  border  States, 
474. 

Seward,  William  H.,  and  Douglas, 
251;  loses  Eepublican  nomina 
tion,  425 ;  on  committee  of  thir 
teen,  453;  and  the  Blairs,  461, 
462. 

Shadrach  rescue,    194. 

Shannon,  Wilson,  governor  of  Kan 
sas,  288. 

Sheahan,  James  W.,  biographer  of 
Douglas,  218,  416;  editor  of 
Chicago  Times,  305. 

Sheridan,  James  B.,  438. 

Shields,  James,  senator  from  Illi 
nois,  171;  and  Illinois  Central 
Eailroad,  "75;  fails  of  re-elec 
tion,  267  ff. 

Slavery,  in  North  Carolina,  147- 
148;  in  Illinois,  155-156,  178, 
242-243;  in  Kansas,  287,  298; 
Nebraska  bill  not  designed  to 
extend,  234;  Douglas  on  exten 
sion  of,  179-180,  243;  peonage, 
186;  Douglas  on,  126,  311,  388, 
390,  415;  Lincoln  on,  351,  352, 
358,  361,  368-369,  379,  381,  385, 
386,  390. 

Slave-trade,  revival  proposed,  403, 
421;  condemned  by  Douglas, 
403-404. 

Slidell,  John,  mission  to  Mexico, 
109;  seeks  Douglas's  defeat 
(1858),  381-382,  391;  project 
to  purchase  Cuba,  396 ;  at 
Charleston,  417. 

Smith,  Joseph,  on  Douglas,  58-59 ; 
to  Mormon  voters,  59-60;  on 
polygamy,  90 ;  murdered,  90. 

Smith,  Theophilus  W.,  48,  54,  55. 

Smithsonian    Institution,     founda- 


502 


INDEX 


tion  of,  310;  Douglas  on  board 
of  Eegents,  310. 

Snyder,  Adam  W.,  59,  60. 

Southern  Eights  advocates,  194. 

Spoils  system,  countenanced  by 
Douglas,  198,  207. 

Springfield  Eesolutions,  in  Lin 
coln-Douglas  debates,  366-367, 
368,  369,  370,  374. 

( '  Squatter  sovereignty, ' '  Cass  and 
Dickinson  on,  128;  favored  by 
Douglas,  138-139;  genesis  of, 
161  ff.;  explained  by  Douglas, 
184-185;  and  compromise  of 
1850,  189-190.  See  Popular 
sovereignty. 

Squier,  E.  G.,  drafts  treaty,  210. 

"Star  of  the  West/'  sent  to  Sum- 
ter,  452. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  and  an 
nexation  of  Texas,  89;  and  ter 
ritorial  bills  (1850),  181-182. 

Stowe,  Harriet  B.,  description  of 
Douglas,  295-296. 

Stuart,  Charles  E.,  335,  347. 

Stuart,  John  T.,  lawyer,  23;  Doug 
las's  opponent  (1838),  42-44; 
Whig  politician,  50,  58. 

Sumner,  Charles,  and  Fugitive 
Slave  Act,  195;  on  Kansas,  294, 
296;  altercation  with  Douglas, 
296-298;  assaulted,  298;  foe  to 
compromise,  463. 

Tariff,  views  of  Douglas  on,  314- 
315. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  in  Mexican  War, 
109,  114;  nominated  for  presi 
dency,  132;  message,  166. 

Texas,  as  campaign  issue,  84; 
Douglas  on  annexation  of,  85; 
and  slavery,  89;  and  Missouri 


Compromise,  90;  joint  resolu 
tion  adopted,  90;  admitted,  100- 
101 ;  and  Mexican  boundary, 
110-114,  122-123;  and  New  Mex 
ico  boundary,  176,  187. 

"The  Third  House,"  53,  54. 

Toombs,  Eobert,  189,  190;  Kan 
sas  bill,  300;  303,  340;  on  com 
mittee  of  thirteen,  446. 

Trumbull,  Lyman,  senator  from  Il 
linois,  268-269 ;  Democracy 
questioned,  274-275;  on  Kansas, 
294;  on  Toombs  bill,  302;  op 
poses  Douglas,  349. 

Tyler,  John,  79  n. ;  84. 

Urquhart,  J.  D.,  Douglas's  law 
partner,  45. 

Utah,  territorial  organization  of, 
181-187;  Mormons  in,  220;  poly 
gamy  and  intervention  in,  401. 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  nominated  by 
Free-Soilers,  132. 

Wade,  Benjamin  F.,  269,  272,  338, 
446,  458,  463. 

Walker,  Cyrus,  45,  58. 

Walker,   Isaac  P.,   140,   174. 

Walker,  Eobert  J.,  governor  of 
Kansas,  325. 

Washington  Sentinel,  prints  Ne 
braska  bill,  232. 

Washington  Territory,  organiza 
tion  of,  224. 

Washington  Union,  on  Douglas, 
207;  forecast  of  Nebraska  legis 
lation,  228;  supports  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  240 ;  assails 
Douglas,  341,  381. 

Webster,  Daniel,  on  the  Constitu 
tion,  140. 


INDEX 


503 


Whig  party,  convention  of  1848, 
132;  campaign  of  1852,  207; 
decline,  260-262 ;  nominates  Fill- 
more,  280. 

Whitney,  Asa,   222. 

Wigfall,  Louis  T.,  455-456,  468. 

Wilmot  proviso,  107,  117,  128,  132. 

Wilson,  Henry,  Eepublican  leader, 
348;  favors  re-election  of  Doug 
las,  349;  foe  to  compromise, 
463,  473-474. 

Winthrop,  Eobert  C.,  86. 


Wood,  Fernando,  418. 

Wyandot    Indians,    memorial    of, 

222,  223. 
Wyatt,  John,   21-22. 

Yancey,  William  L.,  resolution  of, 
132;  speech  in  Charleston  con 
vention,  419. 

Yates,  Richard,  265. 

" Young  America,"  198,  200,  214. 

Young,  Brigham,  91. 

Young,  Eichard  M.,  62,  118,  119. 


Norman  Hapgood's  biographies 

Illustrated  with  portraits,  fac  similes,  etc. 

Abraham    Lincoln — The   Man   of 
the  People 

Library  edition,  half  leather,  $2.00 

"A  Life  of  Lincoln  that  has  never  been  surpassed  in 
vividness,  compactness  and  lifelike  reality." — Chicago  Tribune. 

"Perhaps  the  best  short  biography  that  has  yet  ap 
peared." — Review  of  Reviews. 

"Its  depth,  its  clearness,  its  comprehensiveness,  seem  to 
me  to  mark  the  author  as  a  genuine  critic  of  the  broader  and 
the  higher  school." — Justin  McCarthy. 


George  Washington 

Half  leather,  $1.75  net;  by  mail,  $1.90 

"Mr.  Hapgood  may  have  done  more  brilliant  or  more 
entertaining  work  in  other  fields  but  we  doubt  if  any  of  his 
previous  work  will  take  its  place  in  permanent  literature  so 
certainly  as  this  study  of  Washington." — Daily  Eagle. 

"Mr.  Norman  Hapgood's  'George  Washington'  is  char 
acterized  by  an  unusual  amount  of  judicious  quotation,  and 
also  by  many  pages  of  graphic  narrative  and  description.  It 
has  not  been  customary  heretofore,  in  brief  biographies  of  em 
inent  men,  to  put  the  reader  so  closely  in  touch  with  the 
sources  of  history.  In  this  case,  however,  the  method  adopted 
by  Mr.  Hapgood  has  not  only  greatly  enhanced  the  historical 
value  of  his  work,  but  has  at  the  same  time  added  to  its  in 
trinsic  interest." — Review  of  Reviews. 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS,  64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  NEW  YORK 


Mr.  Owen  Wister's  sketch  of 

The   Seven  Ages   of   Washington 

Boards,  leather  back,  in  box  cover,  $2.00  net;  by  'mail,  $2.11 
With  nine  illustrations  in  photogravure 

"A  bright,  enjoyable  book,  brimfull  of  individuality,  containing  one 
of  the  truest  sketches  of  Washington  ever  written." — Record-Herald, 
Chicago. 

"The  essence  of  the  whole  book  is  character,  and  it  is  as  a  study  of 
character  that  it  possesses  unique  value.  ...  It  would  be  a  good  thing  for 
high  school  and  college  students  if  this  study  of  Washington  were  made 
a  required  text-book  in  the  course  of  American  history.  Certainly  the 
young  Americans  of  our  day  would  get  from  it  a  far  more  correct  idea  of 
Washington's  life,  character  and  influence  than  from  any  of  the  standard 
biographies  or  histories." — San  Francisco  Chronicle. 

"The  value  of  the  book  consists  largely  in  its  placing  of  Washington 
in  the  right  perspective.  Mr.  Wister's  portrait  of  him  is  all  of  a  piece. 

"The  background,  like  the  portrait,  is  handled  with  perfect  discre 
tion.  The  reader  who  is  searching  for  an  authoritative  biography  of 
Washington,  brief,  and  made  humanly  interesting  from  the  first  page  to 
the  last,  will  find  it  here." — From  a  column  review  of  the  book  in  The 
New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  23,  1907. 

"Mr.  Wister  has  succeeded  in  revealing  a  new  Washington — a 
Washington  who  becomes  a  wholly  lovable  man  without  losing  any  of 
his  dignity." — Boston  Herald. 

"In  Mr.  Wister's  hands  the  Father  of  his  Country  is  no  frozen  god. 
He  steps  out  of  the  block  of  ice  into  which,  as  the  author  so  well  indi 
cates,  he  was  put  for  safekeeping  after  death.  The  book  emphasizes  the 
man  side  of  Washington's  character.  The  hero  is  in  the  background, 
and  the  result  is  a  warm  and  very  convincing  picture  which  it  is  good  to 
have." — Philadelphia  Public  Ledger. 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS,  64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  NEW  YORK 


Theodore  Roosevelt 

The  Boy  and  the  Man 

By  JAMES  MORGAN 

Cloth,  illustrated,  gilt  tops,  $1.50 

"It  does  not  pretend  to  be  an  analysis  of  the  individual, 
and  it  was  not  written  with  the  intention  of  advocating"  or 
criticising1  his  political  policies.  It  was  meant  to  be  a  simple, 
straightforward,  yet  complete  biography  of  the  most  interest 
ing  personality  of  our  day.  Its  aim  is  to  present  a  life  of  ac 
tion  by  portraying  the  varied  dramatic  scenes  in  the  career  of 
a  man  who  still  has  the  enthusiasm  of  a  boy,  and  whose  energy 
and  faith  have  illustrated  before  the  world  the  spirit  of  Young- 
America." — From  the  Author  s  Foreword. 

"The  book  can  go  into  home  or  school,  north  or  south, 
without  the  possibility  of  offence.  .  .  .  It  is  especially  tonic 
for  high  school  youth  and  college  youngf  men.  I  doubt  if  any 
book  has  been  written  that  will  do  as  much  for  students  as 
will  this  story  of  a  real  life.  .  .  .  Buy  it,  read  it,  and  tell  oth 
ers  to  read  it." — Journal  of  Education. 

"In  point  of  style  the  work  is  a  masterpiece  of  vivid,  force 
ful,  sinewy,  Anglo-Saxon.  The  story  never  halts,  one  is 
never  irritated  by  floridity  and  gush." — Boston  Traveler. 

"Whether  or  not  a  reader  believes  in  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
policies,  we  doubt  if  he  can  fail,  after  reading  Mr.  Morgan's 
book,  to  be  a  better  American." — Sacred  Heart  Review. 

"It  is  a  book  which  boys  will  delight  to  read,  and  which 
they  cannot  read  without  feeling  the  potent  charm  of  what  is 
wholesomest,  manliest,  worthiest,  in  man  or  boy." — Chicago 
Tribune. 

"The  book  is  as  readable  as  a  novel  and  the  story  it  tells 
is  packed  with  inspiration  for  American  boys." — Hamilton 
Wright  Mabie. 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS,  64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  NEW  YORK 


(<  Unquestionably  the  Final  Edition"  of 

The  Life  and  Letters  of 
Benjamin  Franklin 

Edited  by  ALBERT  H.  SMYTH,  late  Professor  of  English  Language 
and  Literature  in  the  Central  High  School,  Philadelphia.  In  ten 
volumes  with  twenty  portraits. 

Special  limited  edition,  $30.00  net. 
Eversley  edition,  $15.00  net. 

"The  volume  closes  with  a  copy  of  Franklin's  will  and  a  series  of  re 
markably  complete  indexes,  rendering  the  contents  of  all  the  volumes 
easily  accessible  from  several  different  points  of  view.  The  whole  work 
bears  evidences  of  painstaking  care  and  devotion  to  the  task  for  its  own 
sake.  It  is  incomparably  the  best  and  most  complete  edition  of  Frank 
lin's  writings  in  existence,  containing  all  that  is  worth  preserving,  while 
in  arrangement,  editorial  treatment,  and  mechanical  workmanship  it 
leaves  nothing  to  be  desired.  The  set  is  certain  to  have  an  irresistible 
attraction  for  admirers  of  Franklin  and  for  lovers  of  well-made  books." 

— Record-Herald,  Chicago. 

'*  'Franklin's  writings  are  his  best  biography.'  To  few  has  it  been 
given  to  tell  their  own  story  so  frankly  and  so  fully,  and  with  shrewd 
wisdom  and  such  unfailing  humor.  We  have  already,  on  several  occa 
sions,  described  this  excellent  edition  of  Franklin,  the  fullest,  the  most 
accurate  that  we  have  ever  had." — Churchman. 

"Some  interesting  notes  regarding  the  twenty  rare  Franklin  portraits 
that  have  appeared  in  these  volumes  are  given  in  the  preface  to  Volume 
X.  The  most  interesting  portrait  is  the  one  appearing  as  the  final  vol 
ume  frontispiece,  a  photogravure  of  the  painting  that  originally  belonged 
to  Franklin,  which  was  taken  from  his  home  in  Philadelphia  during  the 
British  occupation,  and  after  the  lapse  cf  130  years  was  presented  to  the 
United  States  by  Earl  Gray.  It  was  painted  in  London  in  1759  by  Ben 
jamin  Wilson,  and  is  now  in  the  White  House  at  Washington." 

— Boston  Transcript. 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY     ^ 

Sixty-four  and  Sixty-six  Fifth  Avenue,  NEW  YORK 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


: 


IN  STACKS 


!EC16lfflB 


Jl'L  2  1  w 


LD  21A-60m-7,'66 

(G4427slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YC  50580 


